Landlord's property being repossessed! What can we do?!?

jjlandlord

Marktheshark wrote: »

In a Tri party arrangement the agent is employed by both parties.
Hence why they "charge" you for the service they provide.
You should have a claim against this agent.

The agent will wriggle and throw their hands up, they can not charge you for a service and then claim they do not work for you.

Total rubbish.

Pixie5740

Marktheshark wrote: »

In a Tri party arrangement the agent is employed by both parties.
Hence why they "charge" you for the service they provide.
You should have a claim against this agent.

The agent will wriggle and throw their hands up, they can not charge you for a service and then claim they do not work for you.

You know that you're wrong when jjlandlord and I agree on something.

Despite paying a letting agent a whole bunch of fees when it comes to the tenancy the tenant has no contract with the letting agent.

Marktheshark

jjlandlord wrote: »

Total rubbish.

Absolutely not, the agent is employed in a tri party arrangement and thus charges the tenant for the services provided.
These chances think they can operate as they like ripping people off.
They charge both parties as an agent, they are employed by both parties.

They can not take hundreds of pounds from people claiming to be acting as and agency and then say, oh we only work for the landlord.
They are three parties in the contract, the Landlord the tenant and the agent who acts for both parties.
If they want to state in court they were not acting for all parties, the whole contract is void as they were not acting as "agent".

They can have one position or the other , , they can not have both .
Do not charge the other party as in tenant for your services if you do not want to be employed in agent capacity.
Charge the landlord if you claim to be solely employed by the landlord.

The District Judge will hang them out to dry if they claim to "only work for the landlord" yet charged the other party for a service.
You work in who pays you.
You charge both parties you are agent to both.

jjlandlord

This is not relevant to this thread so I won't bother discussing the issue of the agent.

I am just warning the readers about posts #20 and #24.

Aka_Breeno

Jjlandlord and Pixie5740

Without starting a whole turf war, I am slightly curious as to how the letting agent can get away with illegally letting a property?
(This is mainly a side note for later on but I'm still seriously angry they left us in this mess. Surely letting agents need proof of what type mortgage the landlord has?)

We have found another house, put a holding deposit of £270 down today as we can't hang about. (£90 agency fees,£90x2 references fee for me and my partner.)

Sent a copy of our tenancy agreement plus proof of rent paid to the landlord to the solicitor today, I did mention I had put the rent aside as I was unsure of who to send it to so I'm not flat out refusing to pay the rent....I just do t want to pay the wrong people.
I've also asked for a two-three month extension in order for us to move house.
Fingers crossed there!

Pixie5740

It's quite simple. The letting agent isn't letting the property, it's the landlord who is letting the property. The landlord pays the letting agent to find a tenant (you) and then depending on the service the landlord is paying for the letting agency can reference the tenant, arrange for maintenance and repairs, collect the rent, etc. the letting agent is acting on behalf of the landlord ultimately all responsibilities and decisions lie with the landlord.

The letting agent is engaged to reference the tenant, not the landlord. The letting agent doesn't have to check what type of mortgage the landlord has or if the landlord has enough funds available for repairs because the tenant isn't engaging the letting agent to act on their behalf. If you look at your tenancy agreement (contract) who is named? You and the landlord. The address for the serving of notices may well be the letting agency's but the person named is the landlord.

If you want to check the landlord's credentials then you need to do it yourself.

jjlandlord

Just to add that there is nothing 'illegal' here.

If the landlord is letting without consent to let this is 'just' a breach of his mortgage's conditions. No law is being broken.

Now, it is good practice for an agent to check that their principal (the landlord) has consent to let, but in my view that is really part of their duty of care to him and not about any prospective tenant.

Guest101

Just to jump in (and join the Pixie and JJ party!)

The perspective tenant has a contract with the agent to carry out the work paid for.
i.e. - Carry out the checks on the perspective tenant to check suitability for a tenancy. There is no agency contract (no ongoing payment should clarify this quite easily!).

Once those checks are done the 'sale' of services is complete and there is no further contract between tenant and letting agent.

The tenancy is a contract between LL and tenant.

The LL may also have a seperate contract (which the tenant is no party to) with the agent to manage the tenancy / property.

So yes, please disregard all the tri-party nonsense.

thesaint

thesaint wrote: »

Who is holding the deposit?

agrinnall wrote: »

Already answered, post #3.

Thanks, I missed that.

Aka_Breeno wrote: »

•Deposit (£480) is held by the DPS Scheme. Anybody know if i can get it released early??

I don't see why the DPS should release it early to you. I don't think the landlord has broken any terms of the DPS.

You actually do want it releasing early, but to the landlord. This is then used for a rental payment. You can action this yourself through the DPS.

Aka_Breeno

Ok thanks guys. I thought that the agency had to by law check the landlords status but if they didn't, it's probably better if I don't go in all guns blazing. (No matter how much I want to!)

TheSaint; I'm confused about your point. The deposit was taken so that in case we left the house in a state, the LL would use the deposit to fix the property. We have only been in one month and we haven't damaged anything so why would the deposit go to the LL as a rental payment?? Makes no sense whatsoever....