fake landlord, what do we do?

N79

I'm sorry but I found the OP's posts to be very difficult to follow.

If I have understood correctly then no contract was signed with "B" until the 6 month point. Therefore tenancy with "A" was used to the 6 month point albeit assigned to "B"? Was there a S48 notice to go with this change?

However, we may have a shortcut.

What does your second 6 month tenancy (with "B") say about the deposit? Is there a deposit associated with this tenancy?

G_M

N79 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I found the OP's posts to be very difficult to follow.

If I have understood correctly then no contract was signed with "B" until the 6 month point. Therefore tenancy with "A" was used to the 6 month point albeit assigned to "B"? Was there a S48 notice to go with this change?

However, we may have a shortcut.

What does your second 6 month tenancy (with "B") say about the deposit? Is there a deposit associated with this tenancy?

I think we can assume no S48!

But 5 months rent during the 1st tenancy was paid to Mr B.

Good question about deposit associated with this (2nd) tenancy.

N79

G_M wrote: »

Good question about deposit associated with this (2nd) tenancy.

Indeed - afterall if it says that there is a deposit OP is home and dry!

My question about when the first tenancy with "B" was signed is about whether "B" inherited the terms of the first tenancy or whether a "surrender by operation of the law" of the tenancy with "A" took place.

adg1

Indeed OP was a tough read - break things up please it makes the sections easier to follow!

This is a big and slightly strange mess. Mr A and B know each other - any idea what their relationship is? A quick google of both names will highlight any links through facebook etc.

Get in contact with the agent who originally listed the property as they haven't done their due dilligence in checking that Mr A owned/had constent to let the flat.

It is down, ultimately, to the landlord to protect your deposit, so either one of Mr A (I'd guess him) or Mr B as the actual landlord should have protected it. See if there ever has been a deposit protected on the reference number you've been given.

I would seriously consider giving notice to your landlords/agents that you are leaving (1 months notice to expire on a rental due date). Then vacate handing the keys back to the agent. Keep your last months/months and a halfs rent in lieu of the deposit and head on your way (assuming it was a month/6 week rent deposit?).

Its all very well thinking of court action/suing the ll for 3x the deposit for not protecting it/complaining to the agent for months on end but it will all end up costing you money and I doubt very much you'd actually get anywhere to untabgling this mess.

If you communicate all this in writing, and keep copies of EVERYTHING yourself then you should be alright. At the end of the day, you will then have your deposit back, have lived in the house paying your rent etc and can move on and not be out of pocket.

I hope htat helps and good luck!

Fire_Fox

N79 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I found the OP's posts to be very difficult to follow.

If I have understood correctly then no contract was signed with "B" until the 6 month point. Therefore tenancy with "A" was used to the 6 month point albeit assigned to "B"? Was there a S48 notice to go with this change?

However, we may have a shortcut.

What does your second 6 month tenancy (with "B") say about the deposit? Is there a deposit associated with this tenancy?

I think they were illegally subletting for the first month, for the next five months they had a verbal AST with Mr. B, thereafter a written AST with Mr. B. IMO the first tenancy agreement is a red herring, I don't see how Mr. B can be held to the terms and conditions of a document he never had sight nor knowledge of! By expecting him to surrender or transfer the terms you are suggesting it was a legal document and not a fraudulent one.

Cissi

Surely the LA has a responsibility for what's happened to this deposit? After all, the OP has a signed receipt from them for the deposit. Assuming that they have a paper trail of where they then paid it to they should be able to help OP prove where it's gone. And if they don't have a paper trail then surely they're liable for it?

N79

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I think they were illegally subletting for the first month, for the next five months they had a verbal AST with Mr. B, thereafter a written AST with Mr. B. IMO the first tenancy agreement is a red herring, I don't see how Mr. B can be held to the terms and conditions of a document he never had sight nor knowledge of! By expecting him to surrender or transfer the terms you are suggesting it was a legal document and not a fraudulent one.

Except the deposit was paid in connection to the tenancy with "A" so determining how this tenancy ended is important as this will imply what should have happened to the deposit at this point.

N79

Cissi wrote: »

Surely the LA has a responsibility for what's happened to this deposit? After all, the OP has a signed receipt from them for the deposit. Assuming that they have a paper trail of where they then paid it to they should be able to help OP prove where it's gone. And if they don't have a paper trail then surely they're liable for it?

No - not if they handed it to the "LL".

poppysarah

N79 wrote: »

No - not if they handed it to the "LL".

It says the estate agents name and address at the top, then the address of the property and the date, my boyfriends name, amount £800 chq deposit and admin fee and a signature

So the EA needs asking about it

N79

poppysarah wrote: »

It says the estate agents name and address at the top, then the address of the property and the date, my boyfriends name, amount £800 chq deposit and admin fee and a signature

So the EA needs asking about it

Indeed, and although this thread is hard to follow in post 6 the OP said

"We gave the deposit to the estate agents, then they've since told us they gave it to Mr A"

So given this plus the fact the housing act clearly lays the responsibility with the LL then chasing the agents in this case is a waste of time.