Please help re flat deposit

barnaby-bear

EagerLearner wrote:

Thanks BB - will just have to see next week I guess. It's just scary and I imagine that is what they intended. It wasn't a nice chunky parcel to come home to - trying not to think about it and we are watching a movie in a bit and opening a bottle of wine.

It's *exactly* what they intended, just make it clear to the magistrate you couldn't get at the landlady because of the shoddy contract, you've done the work. Relax and ignore the b^stards. they are just covering their own backs. Be iritated but not scared - you've got a well grounded and presented case. Have a nice evening.

Edna_Bucket_2

EagerLearner wrote:

...Not such a good day today.

...Plus, got home and there's a wodge of paper from the letting agent's SOLICITORS defending their case and basically saying 'we had nothing to do with it, we always act on behalf of the landlord, says so in our contract, we're entitled to give back deposit to the landlord when they ask for it and present receips'. Plus they state as we have already got judgement against landlord we can't try to get it 'twice' which is ridiculous as we are not taking the LA to court go get the money from them, it's more to do with how they have handled things...

I'd have thought it was a great day.

1) They've used a firm of solicitors, which they, not you will have to pay for - so they're out of pocket - hooray.

2) By the quotes you've given, it gets better - they appear to have employed an utterly crap firm of solicitors with that "defence." Pitiful stuff!

Mrs_pbradley936

When you get to the court you must be prepared for them to say you have already been successful against the Landlady and that you should pursue her. That is no surprise and you have been wondering about that yourself. However the agents are named in the documentation because you did not have a crystal ball on hand to tell you what would happen. The facts remain that the agents have withheld information to which you are legally entitled and fluctuated their stance with regard to their involvement. You felt that you had no alternative to including them in the summons because they were ignoring all your attempts to seek a solution to this issue. By being included they have been obliged to take the matter seriously and start to behave in a professional manner – had they behaved professionally in the first place you would not have felt the need to include them.

Edna_Bucket_2

...and perhaps the Court would like to hear them answer why they are still doing business with someone who uses multiple names and now has a CCJ against them??? (and has shown no inclination to accept the judgement or pay up)

This line of theirs that you have already got judgement elsewhere cuts both ways - hence my comment on the utter stupidity of their solicitors. If they are "professional" why are they a) still dealing with this person, and b) as "responsible citizens" not now doing their best to help you get settlement of the CCJ as being parties to all the information?

EagerLearner

Thanks all - feel a bit better - I guess my biggest fear is that the judge says 'this is a small claims court where people pursue other parties for money, if you are not after money from the defendant, why are you wasting my time - what do you want from me?'

Of course we will say that the LA never formally gave us written details of the address - we had to go by our last renewal of contract which had said address that they are now quoting, BUT, they never formally responded to our written request. Plus we sent 3 warning letters to the landlord at the address we had from renewal of contract, these were returned/ignored. As we cc'd all 3 to the LA, they knew we were serious. We then had to find her ourselves online.

Plus, as you say, they continue to deal with someone who has a CCJ against them - but is this illegal as such? or more that is just shows unprofessionalism?

If they are able to accept a 'business address' from a potential landlord, then they have done nothing wrong in terms of the address, because a 'business' address is what she provided them with. UNLESSS they are formally required to obtain someone's real address at the start of taking on a new landlord? Then, they would ask for an address for correspondence which could be different?

What they have done wrong is wash their hands of us so unprofessionally - and said so in an e-mail 'if you would like the landladys address we suggest you contact her to obtain this' were pretty much their exact words. But even, then, I don't know if they can be 'done' for this - what can a judge do - anyone want to take pot guesses?

Mrs_pbradley936

That was my point about the “crystal ball” you did not know that Mrs XYZ would ignore the Court and you would get a default judgement. You did not know that the agent would enter a defence. You did not know that the agent was one of the few who do not hold the deposit unless and until both landlord and tenant have reached an agreement. There is a great deal that you do not know and that is why you are going to the court so that they can tell you if you have been treated properly according to the law.

EagerLearner

Thanks P - I agree with those - but effectively we only found out they didn't hold the deposit when we properly read the contract, so that is our fault...

We will say that as they are with ARLA we thought we were protected by the Tenants Deposit Scheme.

Plus when we contacted the agents chasing deposit, we imagined that if the landlady was unprofessional and tried to cheat, that the agent would be at least making sure she didn't overcharge.

prudryden

EL

I have concerns, just as you do, that the LA has no legal obligation to you. They do have an ethical obligation to run their business in line with the good practice principals of ARLA.
E.Q. They should have gone over the contract with you and explain anything that you didn't understand.
The contract was between you and the dubious LL. The LA acted as an introducer only. You will probably notice in your contract that the rent is to paid into the LL bank account by a certain day of the month. The fact that the LA acted as a corresponding bank (i.e. a conduit) I think is irrelevant.
The fact that the LA supplied the contract papers, I also think is irrelevant. The LL could have have bought a tenancy agreement from W.H. SMITH - I doubt W.H. Smith could be brought to court over that.
However, there is something that does concern me. If you paid the LA a fee for the contract - have you paid for a service or for goods? Does that now tie the LA into providing accurate information?

prudryden

However, this is not a frivolous case as has been pointed out by others and the judge should not award costs even if the ruling goes against you. So I don't think you have anything to lose. In fact, the judge may tell the LA to assist you in locating the LL, especially if they are still in contact with her.

barnaby-bear

prudryden wrote:

However, this is not a frivolous case as has been pointed out by others and the judge should not award costs even if the ruling goes against you. So I don't think you have anything to lose. In fact, the judge may tell the LA to assist you in locating the LL, especially if they are still in contact with her.

I agree. I think you are in effect pursuing the LL still in pursuing the LA, on paper you have no proof the CCJ is awarded at correct address, they have obstructed serving papers and I think it's fair to point out that they still process large quantities of the LLs cash and if they are in effect the LL they are in a position to access the cash awarded from in the CCJ. You still have problems pursuing the CCJ against the LL because your contract was not technically legal and had no servable address. You aren't pursuing the money from them but as a cash processing agent of the LL providing an illegal c/o address. If they act to obscure the LL location and address they have positioned themselves as the access point for the LL. I'm not sure whether a magistrate would be able to award the original CCJ from their revenue from her BUT it seems entirely reasonable for you to have assumed they are in effect the LL and you aren't to know *wink wink* what a magistrate can do.
Costs can only be awarded if reasonable and only then if no case, their illegal contract makes it VERY unlikely you'd be considered to have no case, they've inflated their costs using a solicitor in contradiction of the small claims advice and guidelines. It's not bl^^dy perry mason! Their costs are not reasonable, look at your costs.... but I think it's immaterial because pursuign landlord as agent positioned themselves as intermediate.