I read with interest the article published on 3 July titled “Online agency calls for ban on ‘unfair’ letting agent fees“, in which Hello Neighbour urges the government to ban excessive landlord charges and restrictive agency contracts. It is a bold proposal, and while I welcome any debate on standards and transparency in our sector, I think it is important to put some context around what letting agent fees actually are, and what landlords are paying for.
Unlike tenant fees, which were rightly banned in most scenarios, landlord fees are not imposed. They are commercial terms agreed between a client and a service provider. A landlord chooses their agent, their level of service, and the associated cost. If they are not happy with the value they are receiving, they have the option to walk away. Suggesting that landlord fees are fundamentally exploitative misses the point that landlords are active decision-makers in this process.
Hello Neighbour describes long notice periods and cancellation fees as stifling competition. I would argue that competition is exactly what defines our market. Agencies of all shapes and sizes exist—online, hybrid, local, national—and landlords can select the model that suits them. That is not a failure of competition. That is competition in action.
In fact, if anything, we are already in a race to the bottom when it comes to letting fees. Some agents are cutting costs so drastically to win business that service, compliance and accountability are falling by the wayside. And yet the risk we carry as agents only increases—legal compliance, deposit protection, licensing, ongoing tenancy management, disputes, arrears, evictions. These are not small responsibilities. Letting agents take on real liability, and too often we are not charging in line with that reality.
I believe agents should charge what they are worth. Our fees must reflect not just the tasks we perform, but the risk we mitigate for landlords and the peace of mind we provide. Cheap fees often mean corner-cutting, and in a sector as complex and regulated as this one, that can come at a high cost.
Our fees are not plucked from the air. They reflect the cost of running a compliant, professional, well-staffed operation. This includes qualified personnel, office space, client money protection, indemnity insurance, technology platforms, and day-to-day management of tenants, legislation, disputes and maintenance. Lettings is not a passive task. It requires time, expertise and a clear understanding of over 170 pieces of legislation. In many cases, letting agents are more familiar with housing law than generalist solicitors.
I respect Hello Neighbour’s business model and there is undoubtedly a place in the market for tech-led, streamlined solutions. But let’s be clear—this is not a like-for-like comparison. An online-only platform with no local presence and no in-person property visits is not delivering the same service as a full management agent. Both can offer value in different ways, but they are not interchangeable.
We are competition, not enemies. The two models can co-exist. But trying to position one as the moral choice and the other as the problem is neither fair nor accurate. Landlords deserve choice. Let’s respect that.
I fully support the call for fairness, clear contracts, and transparent terms. If cancellation clauses are being abused, let’s call that out and fix it. But let’s not throw the entire agency model under the bus in the process. There are thousands of agents across the UK delivering excellent service, safeguarding tenants and protecting landlords. Our role deserves proper recognition, not generalised criticism.
Let’s have the conversation—but let’s have all of it.
Sophie Lang is the director of Lang Llewellyn & Co.
Online agency calls for ban on ‘unfair’ letting agent fees
