Paid for credit check, passed it and go good references but was rejected!

ryouga

Because despite passing credit check they do not take into account benefits as income so I need a guarantor anyway.

So what was the point of the credit check which I paid for?

Plus they want to charge again for credit check on a guarantor.

What a mess around as I cant give in notice to current place till I am accepted and could of gone for another place same rent and didnt need a guarantor and already moved in.

Is this good practise on the agencies part? They informed me when I moved in they only ask for a guarantor for people on benefits if they fail a credit check but I passed it!.

sinizterguy

Because if your credit check was rubbish, they might not want you as a tenant - with or without a guarantor.

Now, they may accept you as a tenant with a guarantor, who obviously, has to be independently credit checked.

ryouga

But they outright stated on phone, at viewing and their terms they gave me they only ask for one IF you fail the check I even said before I put deposit down I have a bad credit score and was worried and was told not to worry all they check is if you have CCJ's they only ask for guarantors for student tenancies outright.

At no point before this did they say you needed it if you passed the check.

sinizterguy

ryouga wrote: »

But they outright stated on phone, at viewing and their terms they gave me they only ask for one IF you fail the check I even said before I put deposit down I have a bad credit score and was worried and was told not to worry all they check is if you have CCJ's they only ask for guarantors for student tenancies outright.

At no point before this did they say you needed it if you passed the check.

You failed their affordability check. Which is part of their credit check.

You credit file might have been OK. Your affordability as they calculate is not.

Write a complaint and go with another agent if you don't like what they are doing.

Maybe they didn't word it perfectly - But I see nothing very wrong in the process itself.

You got an answer you did not like, so you're looking for things to be annoyed about.

Guest101

Op presumebly they've returned the fees to you?

Guest101

sinizterguy wrote: »

You failed their affordability check. Which is part of their credit check.

You credit file might have been OK. Your affordability as they calculate is not.

Write a complaint and go with another agent if you don't like what they are doing.

Maybe they didn't word it perfectly - But I see nothing very wrong in the process itself.

You got an answer you did not like, so you're looking for things to be annoyed about.

Quite important in a verbal contract!

sinizterguy

Guest101 wrote: »

Quite important in a verbal contract!

Does the OP have a recording of the exact wording ?

Or is it OPs word against their word as to the exact words ?

What we are seeing now is OPs interpretation of what he heard.

Guest101

sinizterguy wrote: »

Does the OP have a recording of the exact wording ?

Or is it OPs word against their word as to the exact words ?

What we are seeing now is OPs interpretation of what he heard.

The LA's need to publicise all terms and conditions of their fees - as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015. - Depending when she made payment, it would be fairly clear what it was.

The LA would need to prove they provided her with a copy of the terms and conditions, and this needs to be on their website.

If this was done over the phone, the letting agent should have a script to read out about the terms and condition to help mitigate claims.

of course they are also a member of the PRS (or equivalent) and a complaint should be made to them.

In general where terms are ambiguous it is in favour of the consumer rather than the commercial entity. So where there is doubt as to what was said, it is likely to go in the OPs favour.

ryouga

sinizterguy wrote: »

You failed their affordability check. Which is part of their credit check.

You credit file might have been OK. Your affordability as they calculate is not.

Write a complaint and go with another agent if you don't like what they are doing.

Maybe they didn't word it perfectly - But I see nothing very wrong in the process itself.

You got an answer you did not like, so you're looking for things to be annoyed about.

Maybe you do noy understand but I asked various members of staff ALL said even if on benefits you DONT need a guarantor, this was the actual staff that dirctly dealt with rentals

And I have the terms on paper.

Somerset

ryouga wrote: »

Maybe you do noy understand but I asked various members of staff ALL said even if on benefits you DONT need a guarantor, this was the actual staff that dirctly dealt with rentals

And I have the terms on paper.

I assume the members of staff were working for the letting agency ? They do not own the house, they cannot decide for the landlord what the landlord will accept.


Maybe they assumed benefits would be ok because other landlords accept them .... but this one doesn't.


Or they could have just lied.

ryouga

Somerset wrote: »

I assume the members of staff were working for the letting agency ? They do not own the house, they cannot decide for the landlord what the landlord will accept.


Maybe they assumed benefitswould be ok because other landlords accept them .... but this one doesn't.

Not at all since when I spoke to them on phone they did say they can speak to the landlord and see what he says but they said its themselves that dont consider benefits income(which contradicts what they said before even from the same employee)

If it was a case of just the individual landlord not taking benefits I would have zero problems moving to one of their properties that does accept benefits.

They did say that the LL may take me if I offer a few months rent in advance instead which I can "afford" as in I saved some money but means I wont have anything to cover other stuff and means if I get an emergency I have nothing to pay for it.