Landlords should ask AI to read the small print before signing

Landlords place considerable trust in their letting agents. My recent experiences suggest that changing times make it important to review both the contract and the service being provided.

Letting agents need to rethink their contracts and fees. Landlords should use ChatGPT or another AI platform to help scrutinise the terms before signing.

I have been a landlord since 2007. Recent experiences with agency fees, contracts and deposit disputes have shown me how expensive, time-consuming and stressful it can be to accept “standard terms” without questioning them.

Agents deserve payment for their work, but their services must evolve with changing tenancy rules and landlords’ responsibilities. Trust, transparency, plain English terms and reliable support should underpin a lasting relationship.

A short tenancy can mean another letting fee

Recent tenants moved in during April 2026, paying £1,900 a month. By mid-June they had given notice, and their tenancy ended on 9 August. Finding replacement tenants brought further work, a void period and expense. The overall experience left us facing a loss, although the agent had been paid for the original letting.

That experience highlights a question agents need to answer: what support does a landlord receive when a tenancy ends shortly after it begins?

A separate agent recently quoted me 75% of a month’s rent plus VAT for a let-only service. At the proposed rent of £1,850, that would absorb £1,665 of the first month’s rent, leaving just £185 before mortgage payments and other costs.

With tenants now able to give notice from the outset, landlords need to consider how quickly another letting fee could follow.

Landlords should also ask exactly what background and affordability checks are included, while recognising that thorough referencing cannot guarantee a long tenancy.

Agents deserve payment for finding tenants. A reduced repeat fee or a credit when a tenancy ends within an agreed early period would give landlords a fairer deal.

What the contract review revealed

Following these experiences, I used ChatGPT to help examine a lengthy agency agreement. It helped me question additional services already selected, charges if a tenant was found elsewhere, termination provisions, authority to sign documents and responsibility for deposit disputes.

When questioned, the agent clarified several points but subsequently said its core clauses could not be altered. At least I could then make an informed choice.

AI did not establish that the terms were unlawful. It helped identify obligations I needed to understand before accepting them.

Landlords are busy, and lengthy agreements take time to examine. My recommendation is to use AI to help review the complete agreement and fee schedule, after removing unnecessary personal information.

Ask: “Review this agreement for a landlord purchasing letting agency services in England. Flag additional fees, continuing commission, termination restrictions, authority to act and deposit dispute arrangements. Quote each relevant clause and page, explain the practical risk and draft questions for the agent. Identify unreadable pages and verify legal claims against current official sources.”

Check every answer against the document. AI can make mistakes; obtain professional advice where the exposure warrants it. Record agreed changes clearly in writing.

My experience of an agent controlled deposit account

Another frustrating experience arose when seeking deductions from a tenant’s deposit. I discovered that the agent had registered it under its own TDS Custodial account. We prepared the evidence but could not access the dispute portal directly.

The agent initially proposed £180 plus VAT to upload our submission: £216 against a £793 claim.

My later correspondence records an assurance that the charge would be waived, but the initial proposal shows why fees need checking beforehand.

TDS confirmed that the registered agent manages the dispute through its account. TDS does not regulate the agent’s commercial charges, and said a transfer into our own name could not be facilitated once evidence gathering had begun.

Communication mattered too. TDS said the tenants’ evidence was available to our agent from 19 September; we received it on 19 October. The agent said TDS had not notified it.

Custodial protection is not inherently the problem. Landlords can hold their own custodial accounts. The questions are whose account is used, who can submit evidence, who checks the portal and what the agent charges.

A future risk from rent challenges

I have not personally faced a tribunal challenge to a rent increase. However, Property118 recently reported on tenants being encouraged to challenge even minimal increases.

Oxford Renters Union’s campaign promotes the benefit of delays and suggests more applications will slow the system further.

Tenants must be able to challenge excessive rents. Encouraging applications to prolong delays raises a different concern.

HMCTS guidance says that, where a tribunal decides after the proposed increase date, the new rent usually starts on the next payment date after its decision. A landlord could substantiate the increase but receive it later than intended.

The agency terms I reviewed listed £240 including VAT for a rent review and Section 13 notice.

My question concerns a future challenge: would that service cover comparable rental evidence, a tribunal response or help at a hearing? Landlords should establish this before instructing the work.

What agents should offer

I would like agents and their trade bodies to offer four clear commitments:

• A stated package covering the inventory, check-in and check-out reports, with all costs
• A reduced repeat letting fee or credit where a tenancy ends within an agreed early period.
• Clear referencing outcomes and sufficient information for landlords to approve applicants before a tenancy is signed.
• Clearly priced support for rent notices, tribunal challenges and deposit disputes, with approval required for optional work.

Realistic marketing advice and agreed progress updates should accompany those commitments.

Before your next instruction, use AI to help question the small print. Then compare agents on their responsibilities and total charges. Landlords can press for change by choosing terms that work for them.

Agents who adapt their services to landlords’ current and future needs will be better placed to build lasting, profitable relationships.

Article by David Lester, director of Lester Lettings Limited

Author’s note: Earlier this year, frustrated with my experiences of high street letting agents, I researched alternatives and met with another letting agent to discuss a different approach to the landlord–agent relationship.

My experience so far suggests that a more collaborative approach can work. Rather than charging a substantial upfront letting fee, they collect the rent monthly and deduct an agreed percentage under a two-year agreement.

The total fee over that period is higher than one month’s rent, but spreading the cost helps our cash flow and gives the agent an ongoing financial interest in the tenancy. Taking potential void periods and repeated letting costs into account, I consider it a better overall arrangement for our business.

Over recent months, they have let two of our properties at rents we were pleased to achieve in the local market and are marketing a third. Communication has been good, monthly rental payments have reached us on time, and itemised statements provide clear records for our accountants. They also offer the wider services we would expect from a traditional letting agent.

This is the approach I would like to see more widely: transparent charges, regular communication and a working partnership focused on the success of the tenancy. It is an encouraging start, an agent willing to offer a different commercial arrangement and build a long-term relationship with the landlord.