x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

A solicitor has warned of the dangers of a Facebook page aimed at organising group legal action against the owners of a lettings agent which has closed down owing money.

Furious landlords and tenants who claim to be out of pocket when Thomas and Company Rentals shut its branches in Milton Keynes and Northampton have been signing up to the specially created Facebook page called Victims of Thomas & Company Rentals.

The firm’s owners, Paul Collins and Louisa Thompson, are believed to have had around 250 properties on their books when they shut down last month.

The Facebook site has given voice to dozens of complaints from landlords who claim they have not received rental payments and tenants who say they have lost deposits which were never protected. One landlord says that at one point they were owed £10,000.

But solicitor Richard Clarke has warned the angry landlords and tenants not to air their complaints on Facebook.

He has told them: “We strongly recommend you stop putting information in a public forum where anyone can read it, including Paul Collins and Louisa Thompson.”

Clarke suggests using Dropbox instead, where access can be controlled.

He has also advised against a group legal action, suggesting instead that the landlords and tenants – who have already organised a public meeting – should issue a lead claim for bankruptcy proceedings.

It is understood that both police and trading standards have been investigating.

The case is one of a rash of disturbing instances where a letting agent has shut down suddenly, with money belonging to tenants and landlords unaccounted for.

It will highlight yet again the need for the SAFEagent campaign to succeed, whereby the public will be encouraged to use only letting agents who display the logo which shows that they have client money protection insurance.

Leaders’ managing director Paul Weller said: “As the private rented sector grows, more people are using letting agents, unaware that there is no proper regulation governing them, and in particular over how they handle client money.

“Over the 28 years we have been in business, we have seen countless letting agents disappear with their clients’ rent and deposits, either by going bust or through blatant theft.”

He said the latest case highlights the “fundamental lack of controls on letting agents”.

He said: “When you consider the many potential risks to the public, it is shocking that any person or organisation can become a letting agent, with no training, qualifications or financial probity.

“Until there is proper regulation in place, unprofessional, unqualified and unethical agents will continue to operate to the detriment of unwitting landlords and tenants. This is particularly worrying at a time when more and more people are turning to the private rented sector for their housing needs.”

If you are a landlord, or an agent with landlords who were with Thomas and Company Rentals, a comprehensive briefing note has been prepared by solicitor Richard Clarke, which advises on landlords’ immediate legal responsibilities. It can be downloaded free online.

http://tinyurl.com/6cpas88

Comments

  • icon

    Trial by social media is never a good thing - but at least facebook shows who says what unlike anonymous blogs and twitter - ask Ryan Giggs

    • 29 June 2011 13:49 PM
  • icon

    For what its worth - the current set up with the old school bodies and endless committee meetings and politics is not working. Facebook groups wont help as there is no control and no verification.

    Safe agent cant make things worse and if nothing else, will serve to highlight it to the consumer when its fully launched. Consumer awareness has been seriously lacking.

    The more who join and the fewer who moan, the better it will be.

    It would a very sad irony if an initiative born from industry failed because of apathy within the same industry - in my opinion - vote with your feet. If you like it - join, if you dislike it - dont join - but dont undermine a good intention.

    • 29 June 2011 13:17 PM
  • icon

    Ian Sanford is correct - but its no different from the issue faced by TDS in the event a member leaves a regulatory scheme. Likewise, if an ARLA member ceases membership - they may still purport to be a member by their website or stationery.

    Practically, however, one question is why would a firm who pays their fees for a year up front leave a CMP scheme unless they are expelled which is a very, very long process (or so I hear!) I know from a local agents demise, when they were kicked out of ARLA, the TDS were duly informed and tenants and landlords advised. I would imagine that NALS who administer SAFE operate in the same way

    • 29 June 2011 11:29 AM
  • icon

    Personally - like or dislike Safe - at least they put the money where their mouths are - unlike the dissenters who only offer opinion behind the anonymity of a message board. Come on - is Stonehenge PBK?

    The name would be ideal afterall

    • 29 June 2011 10:54 AM
  • icon

    I dont like Facebook witch hunts - some may seem justified, but many are not. Their is proper procedure rather than trial by social media.

    I really don't get the negative attitude regarding Safe. It seems very clear - one logo - all who show it have CMP and are part of TPOS or similar.

    ARLA and the rest have had decades to get the message to the consumer. FAIL.

    Only the Government can impose regulation - if they wont whats the point in keep moaning year in year out. Its good that industry has at least tried to do something. Its so easy to moan yet do nothing yourself. We have joined as we want to put our hands up and say that we believe in regulation.

    • 29 June 2011 10:51 AM
  • icon

    Guys - the Government wont legislate so get over it. Shapps has gone on record saying that industry needs to deal with it themselves.

    Stonehenge - your comment fails to understand SAFE despite it being explained. I read an interesting article on the subject and convey some of the key issues below.

    Only agents in your incomplete list ( more confusion!) together with those regulated by the Law Society and NALS, all of whom MUST have CMP and be part of a redress scheme, can join.

    The ONLY difference is that the consumer will know that their money is SAFE. You see, few Landlords know there are only 5 CMP providers. Some mistakenly accept that the TPOS Logo amidst other offer peace of mind. The SAFE initative takes away any confusion or doubt and is far more transparent.

    Trading Standards agree, as do CML, CAB, Shelter, RLA, TPOS and many others - odd that you know better - so lets hear what you are going to do about it.

    Even the Guild of PROFESSIONAL Estate agents require their members to be a member of the RICS or TPOS - which implies both are equal to the consumer despite one not offering any consumer protection. RICS, if a landlord investigates, don't even mention lettings on their website!!

    • 29 June 2011 09:47 AM
  • icon

    The only way to stop this is for the Government to bring in legislation to licence Letting Agents. Membership of bodies such as NAEA, ARLA etc does not guarantee that an Agent will not abscond with Client monies. Price Properties were a member of the NAEA but were still able to trade insolvently for over a year and, although, CMP insurance paid out in many cases, some Landlords were unable to substantiate their claims due to records going missing.
    Safeagent is a good idea but the first member Agent who fails in a similar way to the the one mentioned in this article will undermine the scheme - we need to know what checks are being carried out to ensure member Agents have CMP and, more importantly, continue to have it. A lot of money can go missing in just a few months.

    • 29 June 2011 08:15 AM
  • icon

    Leaders’ managing director Paul Weller said: “As the private rented sector grows, more people are using letting agents, unaware that there is no proper regulation governing them, and in particular over how they handle client money.

    This statement alone shows just why RICS/NAEA/ARLA offer additional protection to consumers which SAFE does not, no matter how well-intentioned the organisation is!

    • 28 June 2011 17:27 PM
MovePal MovePal MovePal