New tenancy: LL wants to add strange clause to contract?

PNPSUKNET

issue them a stat demand and sue their !!!, including extra costs

tbs624

I agree with Artful.

If you have further difficulties over getting the return of your money in full, you may also drop the local Trading Standards Officer a line too, along with the Private Sector Rentals Officer ( both via local Council). As you would need to send them a "letter before action" prior to proceeding to the small claims court, you could add a sentence to notify the LA that this what you will be doing.

sequence

Silly LL! He probably have a void period now well in excess of what he would have saved maintaining the appliances. :rotfl:

cooltt

I'm almost sure the agency fee is non refundable if you go through with the tennency or not. They have after all done carried out work on this tennency and will expect that work to be paid for. To be honest i hate letting agencies but i'm sure they would have a good point here.

Anyway after reading some of the stories on here my landlord must be a saint. He's round like a shot if anything goes wrong, never bothers me for anything and is really nice to talk to.

I would never go with an agency again i think their just legalised ripp off merchants who don't give a damn as long as their getting their money.

tbs624

cooltt wrote: »

I'm almost sure the agency fee is non refundable if you go through with the tennency or not. They have after all done carried out work on this tennency and will expect that work to be paid for. To be honest i hate letting agencies but i'm sure they would have a good point here.

cooltt, I think you have posted a similar statement before and been corrected on it? ( apologies if it *wasn't* you )
The area around holding deposits is fraught with difficulties, and IMO Ts should seek to avoid any LA who uses them.

However, if a LL/LA seeks to change Ts and Cs *after* the T has coughed up, and the T subsequently seeks to withdraw, then the LA would have a hard time proving that they were entitled to keep to the Ts "holding deposit".

Even when it is the T who pulls out of the deal, and the LA is not at fault, the LA would only be able to retain a "reasonable" amount from the holding deposit allied to the LAs real costs.