Suing my Estate Agent

Werdnal

caela wrote: »

After it was fixed, we stayed for another few years because that was the main problem and as far as we were concerned it had been cleared up.

I think this sums up the fragility of any case you may have had. You accepted the property and continued to live there as it was. The time to sue, make a fuss, insist on repairs, compensation and rent reduction was then, whilst you were living in the property, suffering the consequences of the lack of repairs and putting up with the problems.

Frankly, you are on a hiding to nothing trying to back-date a claim this far down the line.

phill99

1. Your contract is with the landlord, not the estate agent. Sue your landlord if you think you can sue any one.
2. You need to prove misrepresentation. How do ou know the EA was misrepresenting? He may have genuinely believed that the damp was cured.
3. How do you know your condition was caused by the conditions in the flat? You don't. It could have been caused elsewhere.
4. You haven't mitigated your losses. You opted to stay at the flat, rather than opting to leave and get somewhere else.
5. You want to sue someone for £12.50 and £6.08. Given that you already have mental health issues, I can't help thinking the stress of suing someone will send you into apoplexy. Maybe best just to draw a line under it and get on with the rest of your life.

ruggedtoast

This isn't the United States. If you actually want to sue someone here you better have either a vast amount of legal knowledge yourself, enough money to pay someone who has, and the ability to pay virtually unlimited costs if the decision goes against you.

I would try Citizens Advice or Shelter. You may be able to take them to the small claims court for not providing a service you paid for, where at least you wont have to pay their costs if you lose.

caela_2

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Did you tell them you'd be charging them 4 years later when you asked if you could dispose of them? You stayed though which suggests it wasn't that bad - the LL will argue it wasn't.... the recompense will be a small fraction if you are successful - small claims is your best bet to do it cheaply for recovering the cost of replacing items damaged, electricity to run a dehumidifier but the time and cost may well not be worth while. A personal injury claim would be expensive and unlikely to succeed, you'd need to do that through a solicitor. The LL may argue that the rent was already discounted to reflect the condition, demonstrated by the now increased rent and hence you had the compensation. The LL may also argue you didn't ventilate or dried clothes in the lounge etc and it will be hard to prove.

I think the timing of the claims are so long after the event that you'd be hard pushed to prove anything.

Heya,

I did say to them at the time that I would like a refund for the new furniture I had to buy, which they refused. I did bring it up saying I want a reduction in rent but they refused.

If they had reduced the rent to reflect the conditions of the property and not attempted to disguise those conditions, then they would have a point - but they didn't. Even then, the landlord and tenant act gives them an obligation to fix certain things. And furniture must meet safety standards or they can be fined.

I have 6 years to make a claim for money as a result of a contractual breach/ money owed in the County Court, so I don't think I'm out of time. I mentioned at the time I would be pursuing compensation and they said they would put it to the landlord. I don't believe it's the landlord's responsibility, but I honestly don't care as long as I get back what I lost through their neglect.

The condensation was proven to be their fault and the guy who came round to fix it said there was no way someone should have been forced to live like that for so long- he saw us sleeping on an air bed in the lounge unable to use half the flat.

I wouldn't file a separate personal injury claim, it would all be covered in the compensation.

caela_2

phill99 wrote: »

1. Your contract is with the landlord, not the estate agent. Sue your landlord if you think you can sue any one.
2. You need to prove misrepresentation. How do ou know the EA was misrepresenting? He may have genuinely believed that the damp was cured.
3. How do you know your condition was caused by the conditions in the flat? You don't. It could have been caused elsewhere.
4. You haven't mitigated your losses. You opted to stay at the flat, rather than opting to leave and get somewhere else.
5. You want to sue someone for £12.50 and £6.08. Given that you already have mental health issues, I can't help thinking the stress of suing someone will send you into apoplexy. Maybe best just to draw a line under it and get on with the rest of your life.

I am suing the estate agent because THEY failed to meet their legal obligations in representing the property truthfully- they were aware the mould was pre-existing as the previous tenants reported it a year before we even moved in. In fact, it's why they left the property in the end. So it had actually been going on for at least 2 years before they bothered doing anything and that was only when I forced them to by getting the council involved- they knew if it went further they would be forced to do the repairs. There is no way they thought the condensation was 'cured' because they made no attempt to treat it.

Whilst I can't prove the skin conditions resulted from the condensation, it is proven that such conditions are exasperated by high humidity, which was an extensive problem in our flat. Again, it was because of a faulty bathroom extractor fan and various other things and not a tenant fault. I am suing them for a lot more than the small sums you stated, I want thousands back. I'm just asking how you would calculate that cost.

I know a lot of people are saying we chose to stay there and could have moved out, but this is not true. Once the mould was fixed, yes we continued our tenancy on a monthly roll-over contract. That was because the mould, the most extensive problem, had finally been treated and we believed we'd have the flat back to normal and mostly we did. It was mainly that and the last year, where the locking mechanism went. I couldn't have moved out as we simply didn't have the money- we'd spent it all moving in the first place!

I'm convinced I have a good case against them and yes it will be a small claim made in the county court. I'm just wondering how to set an amount on compensation if anyone knows.

caela_2

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

Have you actually spoken to a solicitor yet about your chances and what form redress might take? Given the time-scales involved, I strongly suspect any chance of compensation is going to be remote or at best uncertain.

Hiya,

I have got some free advice from cab etc. but cannot get free advice for a county court claim it appears. Mostly I have been told to write to them first and see if they cough up. I might go for a no win no fee, but I'd rather not I've heard they're not good for either party.

Jellybean_Jo

caela wrote: »

I am suing the estate agent because THEY failed to meet their legal obligations in representing the property truthfully- they were aware the mould was pre-existing as the previous tenants reported it a year before we even moved in. In fact, it's why they left the property in the end. So it had actually been going on for at least 2 years before they bothered doing anything and that was only when I forced them to by getting the council involved- they knew if it went further they would be forced to do the repairs. There is no way they thought the condensation was 'cured' because they made no attempt to treat it.

It's still not down to the agent; they work for the landlord.
It's up to the landlord to ensure that repairs are undertaken; if he didn't give permission (for example), then there's not really anything the agent can do.

Out of interest, why have you left it for a year after moving out of the property to try and proceed with this? Why didn't you do it at the time, or even when you first moved out?

princeofpounds

I am suing the estate agent because THEY failed to meet their legal obligations in representing the property truthfully- they were aware the mould was pre-existing as the previous tenants reported it a year before we even moved in. In fact, it's why they left the property in the end. So it had actually been going on for at least 2 years before they bothered doing anything and that was only when I forced them to by getting the council involved- they knew if it went further they would be forced to do the repairs. There is no way they thought the condensation was 'cured' because they made no attempt to treat it.

You really aren't listening to people are you?

The LANDLORD is responsible for the property. The agent is only his agent, i.e. his representative. Anything the agent did is 'as if' the landlord did it - they may well have done something wrong, but they were doing it on behalf of the landlord. The agent has no contract with you and little more duty towards you than fred bloggs in the pub.

When you are delivered faulty goods by a courier from an online shop, would you sue the courier?

caela_2

princeofpounds wrote: »

You really aren't listening to people are you?

The LANDLORD is responsible for the property. The agent is only his agent, i.e. his representative. Anything the agent did is 'as if' the landlord did it - they may well have done something wrong, but they were doing it on behalf of the landlord. The agent has no contract with you and little more duty towards you than fred bloggs in the pub.

When you are delivered faulty goods by a courier from an online shop, would you sue the courier?

The estate agent MISREPRESENTED the property by failing to tell us about the mould which THEY had known about a year prior and which they had covered up! THEY advertised the property to us- the landlord did not take us round and brush over significant facts like mould and the fact the property was really part-furnished and I'd have to remove all the broken crap from it. The estate agent didn't contact the landlord about the mould- they would constantly tell me on the phone that I should just clean it off with a cloth. It was them, consistently, who failed to act within their designated duty of 'maintaining' the property which they were responsible for- they were supposed to arrange these things. If they have a landlord on their books who is not fit to let properties, they should refuse to use him any more. If the tenants have issues with repairs and the estate agents is responsible for maintenance, as they were, but it is the landlord who is failing to fund those repairs, the estate agent should have advised us of it. We were never told it was down to the landlord not paying out, it was always because the estate agents couldn't be bothered to contact him in the first place. I don't care who it was, them or him, they can pass it on to him, but everyone has to understand several faults were actually with the agent and not the landlord and that cannot be argued. I am fed up of going over this, all I want to know is how you can put a value on personal compensation, that is it. Not whether or not I have a case, which I do, or who was in the wrong, please can someone just answer my original question. I'm not being rude I just don't want this going off topic.

Werdnal

Listen very carefully, you are not getting this are you. There is no misrepresentation here at all.

The agent does what the LL tells them to do. I do not know of any agent who will advertise a property as "full of mould, damaged furniture and a potential health hazard". LL asked agent to market the property, which is what they did. They do not tell the LL how to prepare and present a property to let it - the LL employs the agent, not the other way around. The LL pays the agent's wages, the agent does as they are told, the same as any other employee - even if they disagree witht he LL, they want their money.

How do you know the agent did not report the work required to the LL - did you have covert recording equipment installed in the offices to monitor their every move? Perhaps it was the LL who said "Oh just tell them to wipe it down with a cloth, and don't bother me with this issue again"! The agent's responsibility for the repairs ends there, they reported it, LL replied, they replied to you.

Did you ever report these things in writing - not a text, not an email, a letter, posted with proof - if you are planning a court case, texts and emails do not count as they can fail to arrive - only letters with proof are admissible, so I think you are on very shaky ground anyway.

You took the property, accepted it as it was and lived there. You reported problems and repairs needed to the agent, agent told LL, LL did not bother to repair. Agent will not do anything that the LL does not tell them to, or pay for any repairs if the LL refuses.

Your issue is with the LL, the owner of the property, the person responsible for paying for repairs and maintenance. The agent is just that, an agent, employed by the LL to work for them. Ignore the agent, sue the LL if you think you can, but I wouldn't hold my breath!

Go ahead, sue if you want to as you seem unwilling to take advice here. Get on with it, good luck, find your no-win/no-fee deal and come back and tells us the results - I look forward with interest!