Not for profit accreditation service safeagent wants stricter enforcement of laws to combat rogue letting agents. 

This follows a BBC probe into a lettings agent accused of not returning the deposits of over 100 tenants as well as incidents involving allegedly unpaid rent to landlords. 

A statement from safeagent speaks of “a narrowness of vision and lack of resources [failing] to deliver the protection consumers expect and deserve.”

Isobel Thomson, chief executive of safeagent, says: “As an organisation, we have experienced instances of authorities pitching responsibility from one to the other, as appears to have happened in this case, where issues are raised regarding letting agent compliance. 

“The end result is that no action is taken and consumers are placed at risk.”

With particular reference to this case, when reports were made about unprotected deposits, safeagent asks would any of the various authorities not have investigated whether other basic compliance requirements were being met by this firm i.e. inclusion under a CMP Scheme? 

Would the number of reports by consumers not have resulted in an escalation to The National Trading Standards Letting Agency Team (NTSLAT) and what action did they take?

Thomson continues: “We have experienced authorities failing to respond to repeated communications about agents displaying the safeagent logo, for example, as they cannot see the bigger picture of what that means for consumers i.e. that the firm is not part of a CMP Scheme or very likely a redress scheme either. 

“It is not a vanity project about the use of our logo but a genuine aim of ensuring consumers are protected.”

Trading Standards and local authorities have repeatedly complained of reduced funding in recent years, making compliance enforcement patchy at best.

And Trading Standards says the misuse of logos in isolation no longer meets its criteria for further action. 

safeagent now wants the government to ensure that the aim of enforcement is understood by all the relevant authorities and the outcome of not taking action because the lack of a joined-up approach does not serve the consumer well.