We need to talk about behaviour!

I was reading recently about a land agent in Ireland in the 1800s who it seems has left a lasting impression.

Charles Boycott was at the centre of a protest of farm rents. Rather than resort to violence the local community in County Mayo turned to social and economic disengagement refusing to trade with him, work for him, or even speak to him. The protest was so effective that his name led the term “boycott” to enter into the English Language where it remains today.

It is fair to say the role of land agent has always been challenging. It comes with responsibility, influence, the opportunity to do a lot of good and at times, the potential to do real harm if handled badly.

When the post of Tenant Farming Commissioner (TFC) was first established one of the key tasks laid out in the land reform bill which became the 2016 Act was to address the behaviour of agents within the tenant farming sector. Now, the definition of “agents” was intentionally broad and covered anyone working on behalf of a landlord or tenant in relation to a lease. There had long been a mix of experienced and perceived problems in the sector, so one of the TFC’s first actions was to commission a survey to understand the scale of the issue.

The results showed that a relatively small percentage of landlords (17%) and tenants (17%) were reporting issues with the behaviour of an agent acting on behalf of their opposing party. That’s not the majority, but it’s far from insignificant. Since then, a lot has been done to work with agents acting for both landlords and tenants to improve the situation. The TFC, working with the Tenant Farming Advisory Forum and others, has encouraged open discussion and set clear expectations of professional behaviour. Many agents have engaged positively, acknowledging where things could improve and adopting good practice.

Most now routinely demonstrate the efforts they go to ensuring compliance with not just their regulatory bodies requirements but also the Codes of Practice and Guidance issued by the TFC. And clearer feedback loops have been developed so that poor behaviour can be reported and addressed more easily. The TFC also has a complaints process where either a landlord or tenant can raise a case where they believe poor behaviour has occurred. Once a case is raised the office of the TFC will investigate and report on its findings.

Despite all this progress, problems still arise. Each year we receive a steady number of enquiries relating to behaviour of agents, particularly around rent reviews. Too often, we see examples of agents adopting overly aggressive negotiation tactics, failing to communicate openly, or showing little regard for the spirit of the Codes. Sometimes it’s a lack of transparency about information, other times it’s tone or attitude that can cross the line from firm to intimidatory.

The impact of poor behaviour can be significant. A dispute that escalates to the Land Court can be hugely expensive and the nature of these disputes can take a big toll on the mental health of everyone involved. It can also cause a huge amount of damage to the landlord tenant relationship. I often find it is overlooked that, when all the dust settles, the landlord tenant relationship often has to endure, sometimes for generations to come.

The sector has come a long way, but individual relationships and behaviours remain key. I believe the tools exist to have a positive impact on situations where we see poor behaviour. To do so we need landlords and tenants to be comfortable raising these issues with us so that the TFC can investigate. Professional advisers across the sector can also take a lead themselves, as individuals and firms, to keep up the focus on relationships and behaviours, set clear expectations, recognise and address poor behaviours when they occur.  

We all have a responsibility to challenge poor behaviour when we see it, if we don’t we risk allowing behaviours to persist that really should have stayed in the 1800s.