Estate agent won't return holding deposit!

bigG_60

Just thought i had to reply to some of the posts on here as i used to work in a letting agents. I agree that some do take the !!!! as I have been on the receiving end when I was a student, however not all are the same! The company I worked for was fair to prospective and existing tenants and unless you've actually worked in one then you can't know the kind of crap you have to put up with! Also in reply to this:

tbs624 wrote: »

I would avoid any LA or LL who seeks a holding deposit. Paying a tenant check fee and providing all that very personal information is a pretty good indication that a T is serious about applying for a tenancy.

Most places charge a holding deposit, we certainly did as you have people pull out of deals right up until the very last minute and they are essential in trying to avoid this. Also people seem to forgot that these places are a business, not a free service which some people somehow think they should be!

Anyways, rant over, in this case obviously you are right and the company owe you the money, no arguments there but just thought I should give my opinion!

tbs624

bigG_60 wrote: »

Also people seem to forgot that these places are a business, not a free service which some people somehow think they should be!..

Some people seem to forget that the LA acts for the *LL* and already charges the LL a pretty hefty commission plus other charges for providing their "services"

Let's remind ourselves, yet again, that no qualifications, no training, no expertise are required to be able to set up in business ( or work within an LA business) dealing with thousands of quids worth of LL and T monies. Its not surprising then that Ts find themselves on the receivng end of dodgy practice such as the unfair retention of a "holding deposit"

Many, many LLs manage to run a very successful business without *ever* needing to request a holding deposit.:)

bigG_60

Yes the letting agent does act for the LL, but it also provides a service to the prospective tenant, ie. searching for a house for them, doing vievings, doing all the paperwork etc. Are you saying they shouldn't charge for that? As I said before the reason for a holding deposit is to encourage the prospective tenant not to pull out of the deal, which believe me happens plenty of times and would happen a lot more if there was no deposit in place. I don't see the problem in it at all, if everything goes ahead then this deposit goes towards fees or rent etc. No-one is forcing LL's or renters to use agencies, they can do things themselves and plenty do, but obviously if they are going to use an agency they will have to pay for the service! Pretty simple in my eyes.

DVardysShadow

bigG_60 wrote: »

Yes the letting agent does act for the LL, but it also provides a service to the prospective tenant, ie. searching for a house for them, doing vievings, doing all the paperwork etc. Are you saying they shouldn't charge for that? As I said before the reason for a holding deposit is to encourage the prospective tenant not to pull out of the deal, which believe me happens plenty of times and would happen a lot more if there was no deposit in place. I don't see the problem in it at all, if everything goes ahead then this deposit goes towards fees or rent etc. No-one is forcing LL's or renters to use agencies, they can do things themselves and plenty do, but obviously if they are going to use an agency they will have to pay for the service! Pretty simple in my eyes.

Let us be very clear about this. The Agent does not provide any service to a 'renter' [tenant or prospective tenant] and there is no contractual or customer relationship between a renter and a letting agent.

The agent is exactly that - an agent - who acts for the Landlord. All the 'services' you mention are not really services provided to the tenant - they are actions carried out on behalf of the Landlord - even where the tenant pays.

tallen

Thanks everyone for your replies. The threat of court seemed to be a very effective method as I finally received my holding deposit back in full yesterday. According to the estate agent the transfer was made on Saturday, two days after the email was sent so I have no doubt that it is that action which finally drove them to it.

As for the requests to "name and shame", I'm quite happy to reveal that the company in question is Acorn Ltd (a fairly well-known outfit consentrating in South London) but the record should show that I do not necessarily consider them crooks anymore, just a very lazy and incompetent agency. The individual I talked with throughout was very polite and reassured me that the money was going to be returned but nothing was done until after 4 weeks of pestering - including around 15 attempts to phone (half of which were answered and no messages returned) and just one email reply from 10 emails.

Thanks again to everyone for their contributions; I'm just very relieved I didn't end up needing to use any of it.

MissMoneypenny

tallen wrote: »

Thanks again to everyone for their contributions; I'm just very relieved I didn't end up needing to use any of it.

Going to court isn't that bad: in fact, it's quite an enjoyable experience.

Congats on getting your money back.

tbs624

bigG_60 wrote: »

Yes the letting agent does act for the LL, but it also provides a service to the prospective tenant, ie. searching for a house for them, doing vievings, doing all the paperwork etc. Are you saying they shouldn't charge for that?

Let's line this up against EAs in general - you could also say that an EA acting for a vendor(and being paid by him/her/) may, on your line of reasoning, also look to charge the buyer for his "services".

With rentals the LA is already being paid by the LL for acting on the LLs behalf.

bigG_60 wrote: »

As I said before the reason for a holding deposit is to encourage the prospective tenant not to pull out of the deal, which believe me happens plenty of times and would happen a lot more if there was no deposit in place. I don't see the problem in it at all, if everything goes ahead then this deposit goes towards fees or rent etc...

No, the reason for a holding deposit is to help the LA's cash flow.

Ts who have coughed up their personal & financial info plus a charge to cover the "credit referencing" have a couple of pretty good reasons not to pull out. The practice of requesting a holding deposit merely muddies the waters.

Your "crystal ball" assertion that more Ts would be likely to pull out if they weren't asked to a holding deposit is nothing more than personal conjecture. As I said before, many LLs *don't* find it necessary to request them

The paying of a holding deposit does not of course prevent a LL/LA from reneging on the deal - what recompense is there from the LL/LL for potential Ts who are let down, perhaps already having given notice/packed up, booked removals companies/time off work etc?

tbs624

tallen wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies. The threat of court seemed to be a very effective method as I finally received my holding deposit back in full yesterday. According to the estate agent the transfer was made on Saturday, two days after the email was sent so I have no doubt that it is that action which finally drove them to it.

That's good news - thanks for updating the thread as it can be encouraging to other Ts.