Mislead on value of agreed debt

The_Bob

Hello people! 

I’m hoping you can help me with an arrears issue. 

I rented a house out via a property managing agent whose job is was to collect rents from a tenant. 

The tenant vacated and left outstanding arrears and a lot of damage. 

The Managing agent told me verbally that they would bankroll the outstanding arrears and pay me the tenant deposit to offset some of the cost of damage caused by the tenant. 

The managing agent sent me an email the next day telling me “as a gesture of good will the full arrears along with the deposit would be sent back to you (me), the total value of the arrears £700”

I receive the £700 back from the agent over 3 instalments. 

The deposit of £1100 is also sent back to me but I am told that “this deposit has been offset against arrears and not damage”.

After alot of questioning, the agent admits that the true value of the arrears is £1800 (£1100 + £700) and that the tenant deposit was used to lower arrears they were bankrolling. 

They then go onto say, because they’ve made a £700 gesture of goodwill they don’t have to pay the rest of the £1100 arrears they said would bank roll. 

I have argued that we have entered into a contract because they offered to bank roll the arrears in FULL totalling (which totalled £1800), they have agreed a payment structure and also paid me the misinformed amount £700. 

I am now challenging that they have mislead me on the true value of the debt due to them misaccoutning the tenant deposit against arrears to lower their liability. 

There is a material difference between the mis-informed debt value of £700 and true FULL value of £1800 therefore the contract is null and void and the fact they admit (in writing several times) the true FULL value is of the debt £1800 they still owe me £1100 because they said they would bank roll the arrears in full. 

Any thoughts….. it feels like they’re argument circles around them making a “gesture of goodwill” and not the fact they mislead me on the total full value of the arrears.

thanks all! 

MattMattMattUK

Ultimately it will come down to what the contract says about unpaid rents, damage, deposits and if they indemnified you. 

cannugec5

I had to Google the definition of ‘to bank roll’ and I presume in this context you are using it as ‘pay’ ? 

I guess it all depends on the contract you have with your agent. 

How does liability for arrears sit within that? Are they fully liable to pay you the full rent although the tenant never paid or does either you or the agent have insurance to cover such losses? 

I agree that it sounds as if the agent has tried to mislead you, but I don’t understand how they thought that could succeed if you know what the monthly rent coming in should be - unless you have so many properties that you have no idea of individual renal rates and agreements of course:)
Of course. You have no consumer rights as this is a business transaction. 

MorningcoffeeIV

Bankroll generally means to support financially, but not as a gift, but with an expectation it will be repaid where possible - eg you might bankroll a start up, or a gambler.

It seems there was enough remaining of the deposit that they could take at least some of it back, so all seems reasonable enough.

The_Bob

Thanks for the responses all. 

It was not written into my contract with the agent that they would pay for any outstanding arrears.

Outside my signed contract agreement, the agent offered to pay me for the full outstanding arrears because of the poor service I had received from them whilst they were trying to collect the arrears from the tenant, which is a rather unique thing to do. 

There was no expectation that I would pay the agent back, they were going to pay me the arrears balance and then recoup from the tenant directly. 

eddddy

You seem to be saying...

• You rent a house to a tenant

• You have a management company who collect the rent from the tenant

• The tenant didn't pay all their rent - so the management company is paying you some/all of the missing rent (as a gesture of goodwill)

That seems to be incredibly unlikely.


I think that either

• there must be some more key information which you haven't mentioned, or
• the management company is lying to you, or
• you have misunderstood something

For example, is it a scheme where you rent the house to a 'management company'? Then the 'management company' sub-let the house to tenants? (Sometimes called a "Guaranteed Rent Scheme" or similar.)

i.e. Presumably you have signed a tenancy agreement. What is the name of the tenant on that agreement - the 'management company' or the person who was living in the house?