Agency Holding Fee - Reference fail but no options given

spacey2012

Accommodation Agency Act 1953 makes it illegal to take advanced fees on the promise of property later.
Research Letter before action, several templates are available.
When they ignore this, issue a claim via "money claim on line" quoting the
Accommodation Agency Act 1953.
This could leave the directer/s liable to prosecution.
Most likely, they will pay it back as a one off. as they are dancing along the Law and will know this.
I doubt very much they will want dragging before a district judge to explain why their "contract" trumps primary legislation.

thelem

Southpaw18 wrote: »

The receipt i have literally has my name, the amount and says its non refundable on returning of bad references.

So you can't complain that they've broken the terms that you agreed to then - your references failed, so they kept the deposit. You should have queried at the time you handed over the money, as that is when you are in the strongest position to get terms changed.

To get your money back, you'll either need to prove that those terms were illegal, or convince the agency that it will be easier to just give you the money rather than fight.

tim123456789

Southpaw18 wrote: »

Hi,

I paid £350 to hold a property with a well known agency, this was a large amount, i paid and was given a receipt for.

the company undertook my references and said they worked on behalf of the landlord who was in another country.

10 days before we moved, after sending our notice on our old place, they called to tell me my references failed, basically it asks for if you have any CCJs, Bankruptcy or adverse credit, i replied no, as I paid off in full an IVA over a year ago and presumed this was the case.

The agents, who were working on the landlords 'behalf' said that the landlord didnt like this, even though it was fully paid, he was not offering me credit, .

Of course the LL is offering you credit.

You're signing a fixed term lease and only paying for part of it up front, the rest is "on credit". It's money that you owe to him that he's trusing you to pay in the future. How else can you possibly look at it?

Though I do sympathise with you on the principle issue here.

tim

tim123456789

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So the terms were explicit.

What did the letting agent say at the time?

Notwithstanding the possibility that there may be explicit laws outlawing such a clause.

I suggest that the general law on unfair terms (in consumer contracts) makes it unlawful as, in this particular case, the recipient of the funds has the sole discretion in deciding whether you have passed their credit check or not, and hence whether they can keep the money for no supply. This is well open to abuse and would not stand court scrutiny.

tim