Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Tenant to owner - deposit return


Recommended Posts

I have a singular situation here: initially a tenant with a 6-month lease, ending on 31/8 with option to renew, I was informed via the letting agent that the Landlord required vacation as he wished to sell the property. As sitting tenant, I requested first refusal, and agreed directly with the Landlord on a purchase price, with no intermediate estate agents.

We agreed verbally over the phone that as I was purchasing the property, there would be no need to pay rent for September, as if I had moved out, the property would have been empty and no rent paid anyway.

Sale has taken a little longer than expected, principally because several insurance policies required from the Seller were not set up. They have nevertheless achieved end-of-tenancy to sale in under 8 weeks, which has to be a record !

 

Completion is finally fixed for 24/10 , so I contacted the original Letting agents to request return of my initial deposit, as no longer required since I become the owner.

Letting agent replied that my deposit had been forwarded to the Landlord in lieu of September rent...!

Surely this is illegal - not to mention contrary to my agreement with the Seller?

What is my best course of action here?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the deposit held by the agent? Stakeholder or Landlords Agent?

 

Also did you have anything in writing regarding the arrangement for the last months rent?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As lease dated from 01/3, the new Tenancy Deposit Scheme does not apply, unfortunately. I believe, however, that deposit was held by Agents in previous scheme.

Agreement with Landlord was, unfortunately, only verbal. I received a rent reminder for September from the Agents, and informed them that I had an agreement with the Landlord, and in my innocence left things at that.

The Agent has said that they will claim money back from the Landlord to return my deposit to me, along with the master-set of keys which they are holding, but surely they should not have used the deposit to cover rent in the first place ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a corollary, I am paying 150K without haggling, and the Sellers are saving Agencies fees through direct sale, so I really think it is reasonable to forego the rent for a month or so, don't you ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is for your solicitor who is handling your property purchase to make suitable provision for this point in the contract to buy the premises.

 

If he has not done so, you should ask him why. But if you did not tell him that you had paid a rent deposit, or did not tell him that you had agreed a rent-free month at the end of the tenancy, it is clearly not his fault.

 

In that event, you should look at the terms of the original tenancy agreement of 2001 as to the arrangements for the deposit. However, that is a red-herring, if, as appears to be the case, you missed a rent payment.

 

Clearly, the letting agent is acting perfectly correctly in seizing the deposit to meet the missed payment, because those are the terms of the original agreement.

 

It is not the agent's fault that you have now suggested a different arrangement to the landlord, without telling the agent. The question is: is the new arrangement legally binding, on anybody? In the absence of consideration, it is not.

 

You might argue that your agreement to buy the premises is the consideration needed. And that might be so, but for the fact that the conveyancing contract will probably contain a clause excluding any verbal terms that are not written into the contract of sale.

 

If it does not contain such a clause, the agreement to buy the house might indeed be the necessary consideration for the variation of the original letting contract. If it does contain such a clause, what is then your position? That is unclear. You should obtain your solicitor's advice, in either case.

 

In any event, proving the verbal agreement may be difficult.

 

 

 

Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all for your replies - I have spoken with Landlord/Seller, who has offered to return deposit " if I am really out of pocket"... which of course I am - so it looks like the Letting Agents were being overly zealous - perhaps because they get a part of rent, and would be out of pocket if rent is unpaid ?

 

So this looks like an amicable settlement.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...