@tatemono Well actually the tenant would have legal recourse they can sue under consumer legislation. It’s just more long winded.
Best
1 Like
I think that if the tenant could show that the landlord was not being truthful or was attempting to change the agreed parameters of the tenancy, section 13(b) of Sched 2 of the Tenant Fees Act would apply.
“the landlord or a letting agent instructed by the landlord in relation to the proposed tenancy behaves towards the tenant, or a person who is a relevant person in relation to the tenant, in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect the tenant to enter into a tenancy agreement with the landlord.”
2 Likes
great, so how do they go about establishing that to get their HD back? Do they just raise the issue with the LL and expect them to comply?
It seems to me that this is an area of risk that is pretty much unregulated. It would make more sense to me if the HD was placed, as a normal deposit is, with a deposit scheme who could arbitrate. We’ve had just one insight into what could potentially go wrong with the application from the applicant’s viewpoint on this thread. At least two of us have recommended they don’t proceed with the tenancy if offered it. But they really don’t have a choice it seems.
Having to resort to suing under consumer legislation is just farcical.
@tatemono Well it’s just like any other reservation fee. If you reserve a wedding venue, change your mind because you decide you don’t like something about the venue management then the venue keeps the fee. They have fulfilled their contract. To get the £ back you have to go to court and get a judgement in your favour about what they actually did wrong.
If you lease a car sign the docs then read the small print and decide something is unfair, or you suddenly decide you no longer trust the salesman, you either have an exit cost to get out of the contract or you do have to have a valid legal reason and use the law.
That’s not farcical it’s how consumer protection works
Tenants can of course also take non legal routes like a complaint process if the LL has one, getting help from trading standards, etc. If the holding deposit is held by a letting agent, in this case Open Rent, they will also (like a deposit scheme) have a process to decide what to do, and they may also be part of a lettings agents association to which there can be complaints. OR do at least sometimes try to protect tenants against rogue LLs so eg they hold on to 1st months rent for up to 10 days after move in date to make sure tenants get the keys. Def better using them or a reputable agent to hold the deposit I think.
You’re right that lettings agents and property management more generally isn’t well regulated (nrla is attributed as describing it as a ‘wild west’) which harms both tenants and good LLs. There are some terrible companies inc featured on panorama and Parliament select committee hearings (‘first port’ etc).
In this case we just heard the tenant’s side and it may have been a delay for a perfectly legit reason or a misunderstanding as tenant has actually moved to next stage of application…
It really isn’t. Neither of the examples you cite contain anywhere near the element of risk that applicants might face from a dodgy landlord. It’s not a wedding venue you’re going to use for a day or a car you might use for a week or two. Our business often involves a one-to-one personal transaction with large degrees of trust in which years of the applicant’s life are determined by how that LL acts.
The current HD rules allow all the power to reside with the LL. If the applicant deceives the LL, the LL retains the deposit. If the LL deceives the applicant, they have no recourse other than a onerous court process. The 2003 Select Committee report The Private Rented Sector: Reform documented widespread LL abuse of the deposit system and led to compulsory deposit schemes. HDs are a loophole that LLs can still abuse.
I don’t think that’s fair.
1 Like
I do agree a deposit scheme similar to the one for security deposits with formally independent schemes would be better and fairer.
In this particular case the tenant had 2 concerns
A) the LL was taking a while
B) the apparent name change
Neither proved the LL was rogue or dodgy at all. A is already dealt with via time limits. B is quite common for example whenever a Ltd is used to own rentals and not the same name as the LL.
If you own a property the way to get the most income is to get tenants in paying rent all the time as much as possible. Not messing around trying to get tenants to apply pay 1 week rent as a holding deposit and mess about and hope they withdraw so as to hang on to it. So there really is no reason even a rogue LL will aim to mess about like that even if they could. Much more likely if not on OR from a dodgy LL who keeps marketing and collecting deposits from many tenant victims. The sort of LL who deals in cash and wont ever be stopped by an official scheme.
In this case the tenant decided to proceed but if they had been able to withdraw on what grounds would they really have been able to justify getting the deposit back? That the LL didn’t proceed as quickly as they wanted? That they were no longer sure they wanted to go ahead because of the change of name? How is that fair to the LL?
RRA means 2 months notice max so tenants are much less tied in to a tenancy/bad LL than in the past nor will they be subject to no fault eviction at the whim of a LL.
There is however a case for some sort of cooling off period for tenancy agreements maybe 2 weeks or a month, for both sides. At the moment the tenant will be tied in for a max of 2 months. The LL is tied in for a lot longer except for serious ASB or conviction of crime
Best
I’m not talking about this particular case.
I’m resting mine. Could I suggest you do the same?
1 Like