Referencing fee refund question

runningfool

Guest101 wrote: »

Have to disagree with b&t.

A contract was formed between u and the agent. U were to pay a fee and provide information a. U did so.

In turn they would use this information to seek your acceptability on behalf of u to the ll.

The ll refused. U are returned ur money.

One party cannot change the contract without agreement of the other. Now if ur contract said client to provide all requested information then they'd be right. But the contract is the form u filled out, that says 2 months that's what u gave.

Thanks - exactly! If I had been refused on that basis - I would happily(ish) forfeit the money - I know it's not refundable on that basis.

The fact is I wasn't - I was refused for not providing over and above what I had been asked for in the first place, before money was handed over.

Surely that's logic...?

jjlandlord

runningfool wrote: »

The point is where does it stop? I had fulfilled the criteria - I wasn't told beforehand (even though they knew) that I would have to provide 6 months worth of statements. Again, I see no reason why someone I have never met see 6 months of my private life - and had I known this at the start I would have said so.

First of all, you can black out the description of whatever transactions you want.
Landlord would just be interested in seeing your average balance, income and outgoings (inc. that rent is paid on time).

If you have an IVA you should expect being asked for more than someone with a squeaky clean credit record. So you're blunt refusal is not very reasonable, especially that their request was reasonable.

Anyway you paid a fee for referencing. If they did not reference you at all because the procedure stopped at your refusal, you might have a valid argument, otherwise not.

DaftyDuck

runningfool wrote: »

Thanks - exactly! If I had been refused on that basis - I would happily(ish) forfeit the money - I know it's not refundable on that basis.

The fact is I wasn't - I was refused for not providing over and above what I had been asked for in the first place, before money was handed over.

Surely that's logic...?

That is a good point, and I slightly revise my opinion. However, on balance, the LL has a lot more at stake in the house than you do showing bank statements. You could even delete most of the transaction info, I'd guess. Given you had agreed to show 2 months, asking for four more months doesn't seem unreasonable.

runningfool

DaftyDuck wrote: »

I'd certainly want to see a photo of the proffered son before offering the property - or my daughter.

Having shown some bank statements, then refused to show a limited number more, you'd have increased my - quite possibly paranoid - suspicion that there was something there to hide.



Maybe in your mind, but not in theirs. You are upset the LL wanted to see your bank statements, her being someone you just didn't know. She, on the other hand, was giving you, a total stranger with an uncertain financial past, the keys to several hundred thousand pounds worth of her property for several months.... maybe she has a tad more to be concerned about.

Hmm - so property over humans eh? Blimey.

I will say it again - though please do read - it is the fact I was not asked before I paid my fee. Had I been asked, I would have refused and we would all have gone our separate ways. They had all the statements, pay slips and references required. I fulfilled their requirements completely.

I was refused on something that was not required before I paid my fee.

And please note - again - they all knew I had an IVA BEFORE I paid any money - so had ample opportunity to tell me about the extra requirement then, but they did not due to lack of communication (they say) in their office.

runningfool

DaftyDuck wrote: »

That is a good point, and I slightly revise my opinion. However, on balance, the LL has a lot more at stake in the house than you do showing bank statements. You could even delete most of the transaction info, I'd guess. Given you had agreed to show 2 months, asking for four more months doesn't seem unreasonable.

Yeah - I did think about deleting transactions but saw on this forum somewhere that that might cause even more doubt and that they would want to see everything.

I may have 'shot myself in the foot' with regard to losing the property - but to be honest I probably wouldn't want a landlord that needs to know whether I shop at Asda or Waitrose either. Has to be a happy medium.

Let's face it - many people have debt, I'm just doing something about mine and it means I have everything budgeted for (more than many people) - you would think that might actually be a good thing. My current landlord sees that (and I have never missed any payment or bill).

Pixie5740

Did the form say that the two most recent payslips and bank statements, and two references were all that was required or did they put some "cover their !!!!!" statement about the possibility that further reference might be required?

DaftyDuck

runningfool wrote: »

Hmm - so property over humans eh? Blimey.

I will say it again - though please do read - it is the fact I was not asked before I paid my fee. Had I been asked, I would have refused and we would all have gone our separate ways. They had all the statements, pay slips and references required. I fulfilled their requirements completely.

I was refused on something that was not required before I paid my fee.

And please note - again - they all knew I had an IVA BEFORE I paid any money - so had ample opportunity to tell me about the extra requirement then, but they did not due to lack of communication (they say) in their office.

No, not '"property over humans", that's silly. Honesty and openness, and a desire not to cut off ones nose to spite ones face, yes. Oh, and I did read, thanks very much They, and you, need information to assess the suitability of each for the purpose. Given your attitude, I think they possibly had a bit of luck avoiding you as a tenant. Just my guess, mind.

runningfool

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Did the form say that the two most recent payslips and bank statements, and two references were all that was required or did they put some "cover their !!!!!" statement about the possibility that further reference might be required?

No - that was it. I have re-checked it

runningfool

DaftyDuck wrote: »

No, not '"property over humans", that's silly. Honesty and openness, and a desire not to cut off ones nose to spite ones face, yes. Oh, and I did read, thanks very much They, and you, need information to assess the suitability of each for the purpose. Given your attitude, I think they possibly had a bit of luck avoiding you as a tenant. Just my guess, mind.

That's a bit harsh - you know nothing about me, other than I am trying to stick up for what I believe is right. And I agree, it IS all about honesty. Had they been honest in the first place the whole thing could have been avoided.

I have lived in rented accommodation all of my adult life and this is the first time I have been asked for statements, which I was more than happy to give.

It was the 'extra' demands that I objected to - as I said, where does it end and how many hoops do I have to jump through, when I know nothing at all of the owner - who could be absolutely dreadful and have loads of debt?

Honesty and fairness?

DaftyDuck

But (and I'm aware this is just a get-out, but it is a get - out), who's to say the initially supplied information was enough to get you accepted? The supplied bank statements and references might (again, just a get-out) be judged to be borderline unacceptable, but would be accepted if further supporting evidence was supplied. If you were told you had been accepted, THEN the further request was made, THEN I'd agree with you (with a full G_M- approved) 110%

Edit: Just seen your last... Sorry, I'm not meaning to be harsh. No, I don't know you, just as that potential LL doesn't. Given that there is little shortage of tenants for a good property, I (and presumably (s)he) would err on the side of caution in asking for references and the like. Given there is a £hundreds of thousands house on the cards for you to occupy, it does seem reasonable to want to see more evidence than usual, if there is an odd circumstance.

If, IF the LA form clearly stated that that was all the information required, then I would technically agree you might have cause for return. Might.... However, I still think they have probably acted reasonably and you could either have offered them what they wanted (edited maybe), or sought some happy medium. Your refusal was, I feel, tantamount to a withdrawal.

Still, I'm not meaning to be harsh, but partly playing Devils' Advocate (memorably AKA Devils Apricot in Private Eye Colemanballs).

To be frank (not harsh, I hope), I would wonder why 2 months were acceptable, but six were point blank not. That would alarm me. So would the apparent intransigence ... You may have the moral high ground, in your opinion, but I'd still have the keys to my property.