Another thing landlords are going to be blamed for?

"...only about half of those [letting agents] are voluntarily signed up to a code that means that they will operate to the highest professional standards. That means that half of them are not.”

Not necessarily Melanie, and that is a gross assumption. I operate, in your constituency, to the highest levels of professionalism without being a member of yet another body that do little more than collect fees. In fact my knowledge is highly sought because it is wide-ranging, accurate and experienced. You were of the opinion that LLs should simple wait (and stomach the losses, temporary or otherwise), whilst a claimants UC took an unknown number of weeks (exceeding 12 in many cases) and that by making moves to recover the property was nothing more than mean-spirited. Your own reliance on a housing charity in your younger years has tainted your view of LLs and you're on some kind of personal SJW mission that will ultimately backfire should your party ever come into power.

Your statement is akin to claiming that any member of the public not in possession of a very recent DBS check is a danger to others; that all agents will have lower standards *because* they are not a member of a regulatory body, which is utter tosh!

I note that Flintons' response is very carefully worded. They say "“We deny any allegation that prospective clients are asked to pay a holding deposit to be able to have a viewing. A holding deposit is only taken where a prospective client wishes to exclusively reserve a property for themselves and the property is then taken off the market and not offered to any other person." but do not deny that the holding deposit might be taken in advance of the viewing, which is the basis of the complaints i.e. that prospective tenants are put under pressure to pay the deposit for fear of losing the property.
For further perspective on this issue and a landlord's response it is well worth watching the follow up to this story on the Victoria Derbyshire show on 30th November which is available on iPlayer for another 25 days, starting 16:20 minutes in to the programme.

This whole saga becomes more convoluted the more one looks into it. I do actually agree that landlords and agents should all be registered and pass the 'fit and proper person' test. There are too many instances of agents operating sharp practices, just like criminal landlords, and everyone in the industry is tarnished by them. A register of landlords would be far more meaningful and useful than the money making local licensing schemes

The definition of who is a fit and proper person is elusive to say the least. As most businesses are limited companies it is the company which is fit and proper as soon as the certificate of incorporation is issued by Companies House and it becomes a body corporate. It could be argued that the directors or those exercising a significant degree of control would need to be fit and proper but the definition in those cases would be that they weren't disbarred as being a director or weren't an undischarged bankrupt. Some councils bringing in selective licencing impose their own definitions but they are of dubious legally and enforceability.

If people don't agree with this or any other practice just walk away. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

Reply to the comment left by at 05/12/2018 - 09:33
That is an argument against all forms of control and is likely to result in yet further Government intervention to "level the playing field" by prohibiting what many, including some landlords and agents, would see as unfair practice. A couple of the interviewees did walk away, but others who were desperate to find somewhere to live felt that they had no alternative but to comply.

Actually, the Unfair Trading regulations. Its
Section 1 (1) (a) of the Accommodation Agencies Act, 1953
Illegal commissions and advertisements.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who, . . . F1 —
(a)demands or accepts payment of any sum of money in consideration of registering, or undertaking to register, the name or requirements of any person seeking the tenancy of a house;
( Courtesy of Possession Friend.uk )

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 04/12/2018 - 22:09
Provided it is a national register, giving economies of scale and not subject to the whims or political persuasions of local authorities.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 05/12/2018 - 12:24
Would you please elaborate on this as my understanding is that the agent took the money to guarantee that the property would be reserved for the client and not advertised further so they weren't taking money to register their requirements but to reserve the property for them

Reply to the comment left by Rennie at 05/12/2018 - 14:34
One of the people said that he had paid £400 to reserve a property that he was going to view "the day after tomorrow" and that if it was not suitable he would be able to use the same money to reserve another property but he would have to pay another £100 to use it after one week. That sounds to me like being charged to have himself or his requirements registered.