Please help re flat deposit

prudryden

el - The agents held the deposit on trust and should not have given the funds back to the LL without agreement between the two of you. Have you seen their defence to the claim? I may have missed that on an earlier post. I've been fuming and calming myself down before replying to a thread with some dog haters giving a poor lady who is heartbroken because her dogs attacked a cat in her own back garden.
I also have rental flats (not as many as Cl and PB though) and have never had a problem or disagreement over the deposit so I am really having a hard time understanding where this LL is coming from.
I'll match clut on the whip round.

glitterygert

bump me too, I once had a really fanatastic landlord. and it's people like this that give landlords a bad name, you go get her girl

musey

clutton wrote:

whip round - count me in !!!!!

Me too!

(I had to write this, as simply putting "Me too!! was to short)

musey

clutton wrote:

whip round - count me in !!!!!

Duplicate post

EagerLearner

Thanks everyone - still feeling very fuzzy and trying to see the light - we looked at our contract with the agent a while ago and it IS crap - basically says the deposit will be returned to the landlady if she so sees fit, they are 'agents on behalf of the landlord' rather than the kind of agent that keep the money until both parties are satisfied.

My feeling is that they will say just that - 'we were doing our job, the landlady presented all receipts for the works, therefore we returned her deposit as we are agents for her'. They owe us no obligation to help or act on OUR behalf, the b******s!

Plus they said in no uncertain terms that if we did take them to court we would pay all their legal fees. I don't think we have a leg to stand on with them as the contract is so in their favour and the landlords' favour.

Plus with no car it would be hard for us to play detectives - my bro who I was going to use before is now in a different job, plus may have too many genetic similarities to me so couldn't knock on the door... and all our friends are car-less (we live in Brighton). It really would need to be a stranger.

I can honestly say at this point if anyone knew a large man called 'Tiny' I'd pay him £50 to go have a reconnaissance mission!

Edna_Bucket_2

EagerLearner wrote:

...Plus they said in no uncertain terms that if we did take them to court we would pay all their legal fees. I don't think we have a leg to stand on with them as the contract is so in their favour and the landlords' favour.

Can you PLEASE stop listening to the garbage the LA keep feeding you! Of course you WONT be paying their fees - it's a civil SCC case, so they have no recourse to this at all.

Let's just get back to basics and remember that:

a) the LA knowingly choose to do business with someone who uses a variety of names.

b) the LA appear to be able to do business with someone who doesn't apparently have a legitimate contact address.

c) From what you say, they appear to be using non-standard letting contracts.

From all that they appear to be as crooked as sin, and as crooked as she is!

Rather than worry about what they say, you ought to be thinking how it's going to look for them if they have to explain all of that in Court. I hope your local paper will also be attending to get their comments on the case too?

Edna_Bucket_2

By the way, I don't know what luck you've had so far with ARLA in respect of the LA so far, but I found this very useful comment from their website:

http://www.arla.co.uk/info/tenants.htm#are_tenants_entitled_to_know_the_name_and_address_of_their_landlord

Are Tenants Entitled To Know The Name And Address Of Their Landlord?

Yes, there are two or three bits of law covering this and it is a criminal offence for an agent (or whoever is collecting the rent) to fail to provide, without reasonable excuse, this information within 21 days of formal written request by the tenants.

That word is "criminal" not "civil" offence, so once again if there is any doubt still about where the LL is living and the LA are still fobbing you off, it is a matter for the police not the SCC.

Edna_Bucket_2

Here's a little picture for everyone of our favourite property - if the LL happens to be reading this thread ahe might want to familiarise herself with it!

barnaby-bear

Edna_Bucket wrote:

Can you PLEASE stop listening to the garbage the LA keep feeding you! Of course you WONT be paying their fees - it's a civil SCC case, so they have no recourse to this at all.

Let's just get back to basics and remember that:

a) the LA knowingly choose to do business with someone who uses a variety of names.

b) the LA appear to be able to do business with someone who doesn't apparently have a legitimate contact address.

c) From what you say, they appear to be using non-standard letting contracts.

From all that they appear to be as crooked as sin, and as crooked as she is!

Rather than worry about what they say, you ought to be thinking how it's going to look for them if they have to explain all of that in Court. I hope your local paper will also be attending to get their comments on the case too?

Oooh yes highlight the multiple names thing to the court, ASTs are supposed to give you legit contact address and haven't -

barnaby-bear

clutton wrote:

whip round - count me in !!!!!

Hours of entertainment - better than neighbours.

If it comes to it - firm commitment of £20 note from me. Call it penance for not pursuing the landlord from hell to damnation a while back. HTH.