Letting Agent Gone Bust - HELP!

Bickers1

We moved into a rented property in 2006. We duly paid one month's rent in advance and the same amount as security deposit.

We are now in the process of buying our first house and have given our landlord a month's notice so have begun the process of claiming these 2 payments back, only to find the LA has gone bust and the landlord claiming he didn't receive either of these payments from them.

I'm told by a former employee of the LA that another company now holds the database, will that include our money too? (I think I may know the answer to that)

Advice needed desperately please!

G_M

You have a contract with LL, not the agent.

The agent was just an 'agent' for the landlord. IE acting for the LL. So it your LL who you pay rent to (albeit via the agent), and it is the LL who owes you the deposit.

The LL has a contract with the agent, but that is his problem, not yours. If the agent owes the LL money, then the LL will have to sue the agent for it, or if the agent is bankrupt, then the LL has lost it. Not your problem.

You will not claim back any rent - you are paying in advance each month. So the last rent you pay will be one month before you leave. This will cover the final month, then you are up to date and no refund is due.

The deposit should be returned by the LL - I assume it is in a registered scheme? If not, the LL (not the agent) has broken the law and you can claim 3 times the deposit from him. If you have not been told and/or are not sure, check with each of the 3 schemes here.

mynameisdave

The deposit wouldn't need to be registered if they moved into the porperty in 2006, would it?

TUS

G_M wrote: »

The deposit should be returned by the LL - I assume it is in a registered scheme? If not, the LL (not the agent) has broken the law and you can claim 3 times the deposit from him. If you have not been told and/or are not sure, check with each of the 3 schemes here.

The TDS only came into force in 2007, so the LL/agent has not broken the law by not using one in 2006 unfortunately.

Bickers1

Hi G_M

Many thanks for your prompt reply and useful link.

A further question: as our tenancy agreement pre-dates April 2007, should a Tenancy Deposit Scheme still be in place for us or does this only apply to agreements signed after this date? I certainly don't remember receiving any information about it within the first year of our tenancy...

Bickers1

Have just read the other replies... is our money down the drain?

PasturesNew

Your money is not down the drain. The landlord's money is down the drain. The landlord has responsibility for what you paid, even though he never received it. That's his tough t1tty, not yours.

Do you still have paperwork/proof of what you paid and what each amount was for? Just to make it easy to show/prove to him you did.

Landlord has to put his hand in his pocket now.

TUS

You should be OK if you have proof of what was paid, when and to whom. A standard receipt would be good.

Present the LL with the evidence (send a letter with a copy of the receipt) and give him a set time to respond. If he doesn't respond or responds negatively, I would consider pursuing via a small claims.

Bickers1

We have bank statements that prove we made payments to the LA. I know LL has copy of contract

MissMoneypenny

Bickers1 wrote: »

A further question: as our tenancy agreement pre-dates April 2007, should a Tenancy Deposit Scheme still be in place for us or does this only apply to agreements signed after this date? I certainly don't remember receiving any information about it within the first year of our tenancy...

Did you sign another agreement in or after April 2007?
Not to worry if you didn't. As others have pointed out, it is the landlord who owes you the money. Not your problem if his agent has gone under.

G_M

Apologies Bickers - I failed to note the date. As others have said your deposit would only need to be registered if you signed a subsequent tenancy agreement on/after 6th April 2007.

However the LL still owes you the deposit whether or not his agent passed it to on to him. It just has to come from his pocket rather than back out of a scheme.

Unless he can make justifiable deductions for damage of course.

Thanks to everyone for correcting me.