The tenants who featured in last week’s Watchdog programme about a letting agent that apparently refused to hand back their deposit when – at the last minute – the rent of a property they had been interested in became unaffordable, has spoken out.
Lizzie Davies told LAT that she and her flatmate, Claire Coldwell, had complained without effect about Grattan Estates to both police and local Trading Standards officers.
She said: “When I first realised that they had taken my money I called the police who told me that there wasn't anything that they could do.
“I then reported them to various trading standard establishments, but yet again I was told that there was nothing they could do. The only thing that they did was add them to a list and give me alternative numbers to call.
“That’s when I had enough and contacted Watchdog.”
When we told Lizzie that on many occasions police seem to treat such matters as purely civil disputes, she told us: “As you said, it is not a civil dispute, it is theft.
“I had no idea, until it happened to me, that there was so little law about letting agents.
“I would love to help in any way to change this and not let people be subjected to the same kind of unregulated scam artists.”
Both Lizzie and Claire are still out of pocket, six months later, to the tune of £2,723.
Surely that is theft?
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
Comments
With many agents I understand that the referencing fees are non-refundable where a property is taken off the market and referencing undertaken, but surely if it's the deposit for the actual property without signing a contract to that effect, the agent does not have the right to retain the money (from a legal point as well as a moral point!).
I totally agree that if the matter was investigated by the police there would surely be potential for a criminal case - this is the clearest case of theft possible!
My bad - just seen the other report!
It says in the report that the rent 'became unaffordable', but it's not clear HOW it became unaffordable.
Did the agent/landlord put the rent up, or did the girls decide that they couldn't afford it for whatever reason.
If it's the former, then the agent or landlord is clearly out of order.
If it's the latter, however, then the girls can't really complain if they've willingly paid a deposit to hold the property, and decided at the last minute not to take it.
To the people who have been wrongfully relieved of their money it might look like theft and feel like theft. But it isn't theft.
Theft is taking money or property from someone with the intention of permanently depriving them of it, and, crucuially, without their consent.
The applicants in this case willingly handed their money over in the expectation that they would get goods or services in return.
It might be fraud if the agent took the money without ever having any intention of providing the goods or services it was used to pay for (or if he simply misrepresented the goods / services offered), but its not theft.
By the way, I don't condone the agent's actions in any way - I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't theft.
I very much doubt Grattan specified a tenancy shorter than 6 months and so given what is reasonable to expect the girls thought they were contracting for a 6 months tenancy.
Yes it was a typo, fat fingers!
Sorry Simon
There is no minimum term for an AST. (I think your "or" was a typo).
Simon
You cannot normally take legal action as an applicant or tenant against a letting agent as the contract is between landlord and tenant. The only time you can is when the deposit has not been registered.
Also a no win no fee solicitor might take on the girls case.
It is not the Agency who needs to be taught a lesson. By going after the landlord there is an opportunity to send a message to all landlords, do not use Agents that are not members of a trade association.
By arguing that any money was consideration of a 6 month contract surely compensation for a frustrated 6 months accommodation top trumps 3 x deposit?
One doesn't hand over a deposit unless there is a tenancy, a tenancy is a contract for a minimum or 6 months.
A nice publicity rich pro bono case for Marveen or David?
This is a wider reaching problem which is fueling the issue of rogue agents. a few years ago, a London agent went under owing £400k. One Landlord sought my advice regarding a missing deposit which hadn't been registered, missing rent and contingency money. She reported it to the TDS who pointed out that the agent was no longer a member. ARLA said the same. TPOS advised they could only rule in her favour and make an award which the agent was unlikely to pay. She phoned OFT who said they didn't deal with individual complaints, and referred her back to the TDS. Trading standards suggested the Police who in turn said there was nothing they could do and to contact the agents trade body.
Something has to change.
I would take county court action against the agency - they have agreed to rent, paid a deposit. I doubt a court would see this as creating a tenancy, as the consideration given was a deposit, not rent. The agency is also not complying with the Housing Act 2004 by not protecting the deposit - this has a 3x penalty so a bigger sting.
They know where the property is (even without a tenancy agreement). A simple land registry search and person trace if necessary to find an up to date address for the landlord will do the job.
Then Money Claim Online. At the very least this will shake the leaves out of the tree and will most likely get some result.
With Offer acceptance and consideration in place there is a contract in place to rent the property at the agreed figure, the contract is frustrated and therefore it is a civil matter not a criminal one.The landlord through their agent has contracted with the tenants. The girls should look to see if they have legal protection insurance associated with any of their insurance policies, if they have they might find they have up to £100,000 of legal expenses cover to sue the landlord.
Grattan are bad people but they agreed the contract on behalf of the Landlord so when he gets sued it is his decision whether or not to go after his Agent.
The alternative is to send a debt recovery Agency after the landlord and again let the landlord deal with his Agent.