strange deposit dispute

[AlreadyInUse]

Hi,

 

I think I have a bit of a strange case here, and I'm not sure what my rights are. Basically, I've just moved out of a property and the letting agents want to withhold part of my security deposit to pay for rent arrears, but I contend that I'm not in arrears and don't owe any back rent. I think there may be a case for both sides but ultimately think I'm right (naturally).

 

When I originally moved into the property it was managed by my landlord (a company) and we agreed that I would pay x amount a month, and I did so. I originally signed a six-month lease but did not sign another after that first six months had elapsed, so presumably was on a rolling contract since then. After a year of me paying x per month, my landlord proposed a rent increase of y. I was really not willing to pay more for the tenancy as I thought it was already a bit over-priced but it was an extremely inconvenient time to be thinking of moving out and searching for a new place, so I reluctantly agreed to the rent increase, y, and resolved to look for a new place as soon as it was convenient to do so. I paid x+y for the next month's rent.

 

However, not long after this my landlord decided to hire a letting agent to manage the property on its behalf, and the first correspondence I got from the letting agent was a letter asking me to cancel my standing order to the landlord and initiate a new one to the letting agent to cover the monthly rent of x amount. With the y part dropped, I was reasonably happy and stayed at the property for another year. But at the end of that second year I received another letter from the letting agent informing me that the landlord was now requesting a rent increase, to x+y per month. This time it was a good time to be moving out so I told the letting agent I wasn't going to agree to the rent increase and gave my one month's notice. I moved out on the agreed date and was present for the inventory check-out when I was told by the letting agent representative that no deductions would be made, pending a final review of the account at the office.

 

I then applied for a deposit repayment with the deposit protection company, but a couple days later was informed of its rejection by the letting agent. When I got in touch with the letting agent, a different representative told me that I owed 12(y) in back rent as I should have been paying x+y per month for the past year. I responded that I paid them x per month because that was what they asked me to do, and I'm not liable for the 12(y). This representative said they weren't aware of that discrepancy and would get back to me, and I haven't heard back from them (although, to be fair, that wasn't long ago).

 

I anticipate someone here telling me that since rent is ultimately owed to the landlord, not the letting agent, and since I agreed to pay x+y to the landlord, that's what I should have done. However, since the letting agents were acting on behalf of the landlord, I think its reasonable for me to interpret the letting agent asking me for x per month as a renegotiated rental rate. It was definitely the most recent rate that I agreed to pay, and I think recency should trump magnitude. Does anyone know if I'm right?

 

As an interesting side note (or a side note at any rate), after I gave my notice the letting agent tried in vain to rent the flat out for x+y per month before lowering the asking amount to x per month. They were able to rent it for x per month, but that tenancy will only start in a few weeks time. So the landlord's attempt to raise the rent has resulted in a loss of rental income. I love it when that happens.

[Steve__M]

It's probably possible to argue it both ways.

 

On the one hand, the agent is the agent of the landlord. Their error is the landlord's error. If the landlord has lost out he should sue the agent, and it is not your problem.

 

But, the agent's request for a reduced amount may not have acted as a notification of a change in rent (this possibly depends on the wording of their communication). So the Y rent was still owed even though it was not asked for. Furthermore, it would be reasonable for you to have queried the change - you should have known it was likely to be an error.

 

The question is, who has the deposit? Is it protected?

 

You could negotiate.

[AlreadyInUse]

The deposit is protected. It's being held by a deposit protection company. Neither I nor the letting agents can access it right now.

 

The wording used by the letting agents in their first letter asking for x was pretty sparse. They just asked me to "please complete the attached standing order (for x amount) for rental payment".

[Steve__M]

Hmmmm...I do not think you could claim that such a request amounts to notification of reduced rent.

 

While you might think they were at fault for the error, they might think that you were at fault for not telling them of their obvious mistake.

[Kentish Lass]

Landlord manages property. Then landlord hands over to agents to handle property.

 

How would the agents know what to charge the tenant if the landlord had not instructed them? It is not as if they could have picked the figure out of thin air!! It was exactly x!

 

When the agents sent the request for payment it must have been based on instructions received from the landlord. If the landlord told them the wrong amount it is hardly the tenant's fault.

 

I would fight this all the way. If landlord has lost out it seems to me he has no one to blame but himself. Tenant has obeyed instructions given to him. Let lanlord fight it out with agents.

[AlreadyInUse]

Yes, I don't see why it's my responsibility to make sure they're charging me more rent.

 

The letting agent still hasn't got back to me about this. They haven't made a counter-offer of repayment via the deposit protection company either. Is there a time limit they need to observe?

[AlreadyInUse]

Also, I have to wonder where the second raise in rent from x to x+y came from. The letting agent said it came from the landlord. If the landlord thought the rent was x and wanted to raise it to x+y, surely I'm also justified in thinking it was x all this time.

[Aequitas]

I think the way to look at this is for the OP to ask: If the boot were on the other foot and I had been overpaying the rent, would I be looking for a refund? If the answer to that question is "yes" then I think he has to concede that the landlord is entitled to the difference. The same legal principle must apply in each case. I think the principle is that in a case like this a mistake can be rectified. It is irrelevant whether the mistake was the landlord's or the agent's.

[AlreadyInUse]

Are you joking? If the boot was really on the other foot, and I had asked to pay a greater amount of rent than the landlord had been willing to ask for, do you seriously think I'd have ever heard any protest?

 

I paid what I was asked to pay. My responsibility should not be expected to extend further than that.

[AlreadyInUse]

Actually, I suppose the more analogous situation would be if the letting agents had accidentally asked for a higher rent than they meant to, and I'd paid it. But again, would you seriously expect that any objection would be raised? I simply never would have found out about the mistake, and even if I did it would be irrelevant because I would have agreed to pay the accidental amount.

[danielr]

I think the way to look at this is for the OP to ask: If the boot were on the other foot and I had been overpaying the rent, would I be looking for a refund? If the answer to that question is "yes" then I think he has to concede that the landlord is entitled to the difference. The same legal principle must apply in each case. I think the principle is that in a case like this a mistake can be rectified. It is irrelevant whether the mistake was the landlord's or the agent's.

 

Yes, if my landlord, or landlords letting agent said that rent was £1000 a month, and I was accidentally paying £2000 I would expect my over payment back.

 

 

if my landlord or the landlords letting agent said that rent was £1000 and I paid £500... I'd expect to have to pay the difference.

 

 

i my landlord said that they'd like £1500, but the letting agent that works on behalf of the landlord wrote to me saying that rent was £1000 I'd pay £1000...

the landlords legal representative, the person who I deal with, the person they conduct their business through has asked for £x not £x+y and I'll pay £x, not £x + y and that's the legally right thing to do, because that's what the contract (that is legally binding) that was sent to me said, and that legal contract was sent by the representative of the estate agent.

 

there is no boot on the other foot here, the OP paid what they were asked to pay, and they have a contract from the letting agent saying please pay £x per month.

 

and if x just happens to be one of those weird amounts like £950 a month then I think it's even harder for the landlord to say that it's a mistake...

 

remember that the letting agent came in AFTER the rent had gone up once. and they would have gotten the numbers to put in the contracts etc from the landlord.

 

 

 

unless you;re saying if I was paying £x+y and the landlord said, I'd forgotten it was £x +y i thought it was only £x...

then I might feel that the landlord was a bit slack. but no, nobody would expect the money back, and there would be no legal argument for it, because it'd have still been written down in a legally binding contract.

 

fair enough, if there was a typo, like writing £1.00 Per week rather than £100 per week. then it'd be wrong, and unlikely that you could claim that you thought this obvious mistake was the right amount.

[NewSAHD]

Hi, hope the following alternate view helps.

 

I'm assuming the tenancy here is an AST in England/Wales? If so, this leaves it much easier, perhaps, for the Agent / Landlord to succeed in pursuing you for the extra rent due.

 

Just depends on how weak they are going to be in their pursuit of this. From what you say, not very. Forewarned is for-armed, though, so I post this in the spirit of trying to find a way through this.

 

If it were an Assured Tenancy (there's a remote chance it could be, please would you confirm, just in case), or an old Rent Act tenancy (not applicable here from what you say) you might have some leverage, as formal notices need to be served for a rent increase, whereas recall that's not the case for an AST.

 

A "new" AST itself doesn't even need to be in writing, although recommended, of course. A rent is offered, accepted, and by payment made and accepted the contract is formed. Same at renewal, or at a time of rent increase. It depends what the landlord can document from 12 months ago, but will come back to this.

 

(Sorry for the clumsy explanation, but hope you know what I mean here)

 

The mistake here, as I see it is, on the part of the Landlord and Agent is that the Landlord likely gave the Agent the original AST, which referred to the initial rent, but no-one thought, perhaps, to check the "current" or passing level of rent.

 

In a later post you stated "I paid what I was asked to pay. My responsibility should not be expected to extend further than that." As I understand it you pay what you are contractually obliged to pay and mistakes can be rectified. In your case you had a six month AST at rent X, stayed for a further six months, landlord proposed a new rent of Y after 12 months, and you "...agreed to the rent increase".

 

The payment of that new rent Y was not a mistake on your part, as such, for as you say you "agreed to the rent".

 

(I've deliberately removed the word "reluctantly" from your initial post "so I reluctantly agreed to the rent increase").

 

If the Landlord has any records of the increase whatsoever (aside from your payment at the time, of course, which is pretty damning in some ways anyway) I do think you may have to face the fact they will 'robustly' pursue you.

 

Further, if I were the Agent or the Landlord I would first ask you:

 

- you were clearly aware of the mistake, did you put the short fall in an account, when you chose to pay the lesser amount?

- will you pay the shortfall by way of installments?

 

If you were to say ""no"" to those questions I (as the Landlord and with some evidence as to what occurred 12 months ago) would be minded to pass the papers to solicitors to immediately pursue.

 

All this aside, there could well be a separate instruction to pursue the Agent in the event you do not pay, but it depends on what passed between those two parties at the time too. Also, the Agent may well be aware of this, so is likely to be working as hard as they can to show this was an administrative mistake, not the formation of any new contract, which, itself, may be borne out by the Landlord's own records from 12 months ago. (That's all clear in my mind, but may need an edit!)

 

It does occur to me (and I am posting here to assist, I hope, stimulate some debate to help resolve this, but certainly not rub salt in the wounds) that the closest analogy I can think of is that if I get given the wrong change in a shop / pub (although at the latter much less frequently these days ) and wrong change as in too much change is passed to me I almost always say "you've given me too much here" and give them the chance to correct it.

 

Here, a mistake was made 12 months ago, the subsequent passing of time could be largely an irrelevance; the landlord suggested an increase you rent, you accepted it, and a third party (Agent) then came on the scene pretty much immediately and missed collecting the increase at the time.

 

I feel rather harsh putting it in these terms, especially as this a Consumer Action Group, and Christmas is fast approaching too. As much as you need support (as we all do ) , my take on this is that the Agent / Landlord may, graciously, concede and back down. Perhaps even fight amongst themselves.

 

But I think they will pursue you and expect to succeed - dependent, of course, to what the landlord can produce (and he WILL doubtless find something )

 

Will give some further thought to this, but save lying about what occurred 12 months ago (which is never good) my current take on this is that you WILL be pursued. Sorry, but hope that may help in some way.

 

PS I'm not a lawyer...

Edited December 20, 2009 by NewSAHD

[Aequitas]

I think that NewSAHD has it about right.

 

Obviously there has to be a rule as to what happens where a mistake of this kind happens. The rule is NOT that the mistake cannot be rectified if it is in your favour, but must be rectified if it is in someone else's favour.

 

The basic position is that where an underpayment or overpayment is made where both parties know what the correct amount should have been, the party losing out is entitled to have his loss made good. There may be exceptions where it is not reasonable to apply the rule, but the OP's case does not strike me as being one.

[Steve__M]

Also, I have to wonder where the second raise in rent from x to x+y came from. The letting agent said it came from the landlord. If the landlord thought the rent was x and wanted to raise it to x+y, surely I'm also justified in thinking it was x all this time.

 

This is an interesting point. Is this a possible explanation?:

 

The landlord and agent took a year to realise that the wrong amount was being collected. The landlord says to the agent "Sort this out". The agent perhaps decides to consider taking the loss on the chin and merely presents it as a rent rise (in the hope of keeping you as a tenant and therefore keeping the commission rolling in). When you reject the rent rise and decide to move, they realise they have nothing to lose in pursuing you.

 

Maybe the landlord hasn't yet found out about their error?

 

So I think you would possibly lose if you took it all the way, but there maybe enough going on that you might get away with negotiating.

 

BTW. What is X and Y?

[NewSAHD]

Maybe the landlord hasn't yet found out about their error?

 

Possibly. My view, however (for what it is worth), is that the Landlord has already found out though.

 

The trigger for all this was that AlreadyInUse vacated, of course. Someone, somewhere has seen the mistake over the rent, most likely, perhaps, at the Landlord company.

 

I mention this as the "shortfall" was not raised by the Agent when AlreadyInUse vacated. This is assuming that the Agent checked if any rents were due, prior to AlreadyInUse vacating.

 

As I see it, the Landlord, a company, has been advised their tenant has vacated. Their records show a short fall in rent. Some Landlords have one property, some have many tens of thousands, but the ''systems" of both can be sufficiently hopeless for large rent arrears and mistakes like this to easily slip through.

 

So, if the Landlord does know, and I'm guessing they do (sorry, just heard Marcus Brigstocke on YouTube discussing the three Abrahamic faiths), and the Agent themselves have made a mistake, then the Landlord has already put the Agent on notice.

 

The Agent, in turn, is required to notify their Insurers/Professional Indemnity. So, strictly speaking, the Agent dare not do anything on the sly now.

 

They don't always though i.e do they feel that this is "professional negligence", or is it a "rental dispute", so not notifiable to Insurers?

 

Anyway, if it is that the Agent has not made a mistake it is still open to the Landlord and their Agent to pursue.

 

Reason? For me, it all hinges, perhaps, on what the Landlord can demonstrate happened 12 months ago, when they increased the rent from X to Y. Plus, tellingly, you subsequently paid it, if only for one month.

 

The fact that an Agent then took over almost immediately may well help them in their argument. I can almost hear them saying/writing

 

"this was simply a mistake at time of handover; the increase in rent had already been accepted and, indeed, paid, and as such is not open for discussion, save as to whether you now pay the shortfall in full, or by way of Z number of installments. We offer the opportunity to pay by way of installments out of courtesy only and should be grateful if you would confirm your intentions by return"

 

but it does depend on how robust they are and what happened between the Agent and Landlord 12 months ago.

 

So I think you would possibly lose if you took it all the way, but there maybe enough going on that you might get away with negotiating.

 

Welcome to hear any other feedback, but, personally, I think they are going to go for you. Probably with little or no negotiation.

 

I know that you have posted your comments here in confidence (the earlier "I agreed reluctantly to pay the increase"), but (always?sometime?) the truth will out.

 

You've been honest in your postings here and may struggle, perhaps, to explain, plausibly, why you paid an increase in the rent 12 months ago, but not after - that is, if your point is that there was no increase.

 

Plus, it comes back to the Landlord and Agent simply saying you paid the increase in rent at time of increase and all that happened was a mistake, one that is now to be rectified.

 

With all that in mind I would be minded to wait and see what gets sent to you next. And then post a comment / edited copy here, for review, before your reply/speak with them.

 

As I said, it just depends on how robust they are and how much money is at stake...

 

...so let them sweat, perhaps, rather than approach them at this stage.

 

BTW. What is X and Y?

 

...so if you could let us know X and Y we can better gauge what may happen next.

 

 

ps I'm not a lawyer and don't have a crystal ball either, but, as before, hope these posts help in some way.

Edited December 21, 2009 by NewSAHD
typos and tidying

[AlreadyInUse]

Thanks very much for all the feedback and the benefit of your collective experience. It's very much appreciated, whatever your take on the issue happens to be. I did think there'd be some difference of opinion as the case does seem a bit ambiguous. I will let the thread know as soon as I get further communication from the agent.

 

To answer some of the queries, yes this was an AST, and it was held in England. I'd like to hang on to x and y for the time being, though I promise to tell eventually. I do get the point that the amounts are important for predicting what will happen next, but I also fear that knowing them may prejudice viewpoint, and they also help maintain an illusion of preserving anonymity.

 

I would never try to claim that there was never an increase in the rent. It's dishonest for starters and I'd never get away with it for enders. I would argue that after the increase there was an apparent decrease. If they were unhappy shouldn't they have done something about it before the tenancy ended?

 

For the record, I always return extra change given to me in error. However, I would probably be tempted not to if the person on checkout raised the price of my purchase as a result of seeing me holding it in the queue. This is not a case of me exploiting some poor unfortunate's honest mistake. This landlord was being too greedy (it happens), and I don't want to reward them for it.

 

Actually, more analogous than returning extra change, consider going up to the checkout expecting to pay one amount and then getting charged a smaller one. Putting aside standards of personal honesty for a minute, if you pay what you're asked to and the assistant accepts it and lets you walk away with a receipt for your purchase, can they really be entitled to chase you down and ask for more money? My tenancy is over and the check out is complete. Aren't I out the door with my receipt yet?

[danielr]

Then the management of the property changed from the landlord to an estate agent, did the estate agent actually send out a new AST for you to sign?

 

or did you literally just receive a letter saying pay X into this account.

[Aequitas]

I said above that the rule I set out was subject to exceptions. Exceptions are often found in the detail and we do not know enough to know whether the devil is in the detail.

 

Is the length of time the mistake went on relevant? Possibly. There probably comes a point when it would be unfair to seek the difference. There cannot be any hard and fast rule about the length of time.

 

Was there a representation that the rent had been reduced? I think there had to be a very clear representation that the rent was being reduced and this would really have to have followed on from negotiations - no sane landlord unilaterally and gratuitously reduces the rent. The situation seems clear: an increased rent was agreed and started to be paid, but when agents were appointed they were unaware of the increase and asked for the wrong amount of rent. It was a mistake and nothing more. If the position were reversed and you had been overpaying, would you accept the landlord's contention that you had made a representation that the rent had increased? I suspect not - no sane tenant unilaterally and gratuitously increases the rent.

 

The fact that the increase may have above the market rent is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that it was agreed.

 

Imagine you are in court. The judge says: "Now Mr AlreadyInUSe, you agreed an increase in rent and started paying it. When Mr Landlord put management in the hands of Mr Agent, Mr Agent, due to a misunderstanding with Mr Landlord, started asking for rent at the level it was before the increase was agreed. You must have realised that the wrong amount of rent was being demanded. You failed to point this out and there was of course no obligation on you to do so. Now that the error has come to light you contend you ought not pay the shortfall. I think you are going to have to come up with a very good reason to persuade me I should not make an order requiring you to pay the shortfall." What are you going to say?

[danielr]

Imagine you are in court. The judge says: "Now Mr AlreadyInUSe, you agreed an increase in rent and started paying it. When Mr Landlord put management in the hands of Mr Agent, Mr Agent, due to a misunderstanding with Mr Landlord, started asking for rent at the level it was before the increase was agreed. You must have realised that the wrong amount of rent was being demanded. You failed to point this out and there was of course no obligation on you to do so. Now that the error has come to light you contend you ought not pay the shortfall. I think you are going to have to come up with a very good reason to persuade me I should not make an order requiring you to pay the shortfall." What are you going to say?

you say due to a misunderstanding, but who's fault is that? how was the OP to know it was a misunderstanding and not a change in rent. remember it's a two way street, rent can go up or down.

why would the OP point it out? not just because they were getting a better deal, but also, how would they know it's a mistake? it's not unreasonable to expect your landlord and their agent to be professional and at least proof read something that they've written before sending it out.

(just how shops have to honour the advertised price not just charge random amounts at the till).

 

I'm assuming that you don't rent?

 

I find that most notifications regarding the change in amount of the rent isn't sent in the form of a letter asking please can you agree to a rise in your rent so that you now pay £xxx + £yyy total £zzz.

 

the letters are almost always, please pay £zzz.

 

there is no question of agreement, yes, you can choose to try to negotiate, but this might not always be possible...

 

it's a two way street, rent can go up.

also rent can go down.

 

12 months ago the housing market was dipping interest rates were down, people weren't paying as much on their mortgage, and it's not unreasonable to expect that a landlord may have decided to lower the rent.

for a start there is a reasonable expectation that the property isn't costing the landlord as much, plus already knowing that the tenant was in a rolling contract and only had to give a months notice. also aware of the fact that they didn't really want to pay that much rent.

and also aware of the fact that the price of the property was above the market value...

 

If I were a landlord, I might have lowered the rent too to try to make sure that I kept hold of the tenant.

 

And it's not going to a judge, it's going to the TDS adjudicator, (assuming that the OP/agent/landlord can't come to an agreement before that time).

so no judge is going to order that a payment is made, just an adjudicator MIGHT make a deduction from a deposit that is held in part to help in circumstances exactly like this!

[AlreadyInUse]

Then the management of the property changed from the landlord to an estate agent, did the estate agent actually send out a new AST for you to sign?

 

or did you literally just receive a letter saying pay X into this account.

 

I just got a letter saying pay x into this account. No new AST was signed.

[danielr]

I just got a letter saying pay x into this account. No new AST was signed.

ok... and what about the rent increase..

 

was this just a letter that said pay £x + £y into this account, (that account being the landlords account?).

 

or was there a new AST drawn up?

[Aequitas]

you say due to a misunderstanding, but who's fault is that? etc

 

I do not think fault comes into it. It was a mistake. Everyone, however careful or professional, makes mistakes. Now, if you are saying that as a matter of principle that anyone who makes a mistake should have to put up with it, fine, but it has to apply across the board.

 

As to the landlord lowering the rent, with respect, no landlord lowers the rent unless he has to. It is quite possible to imagine a scenario where a tenant sets up a standing order and inadvertently reverses two digits and ends up paying more rent than he ought to have done. Say it is a year before he spots it. Do you think the landlord should be able to argue that he assumed that the tenant had voluntarily increased the rent?

 

I am not on anyone's side here. I am just trying to point out that, if the arguments that people put forward as to why the mistake should not be rectified are thought through, they produce results that they may not think ought to apply if it were the tenant who had made the mistake.

 

And to answer your question, yes I do rent.

[danielr]

I do not think fault comes into it. It was a mistake. Everyone, however careful or professional, makes mistakes. Now, if you are saying that as a matter of principle that anyone who makes a mistake should have to put up with it, fine, but it has to apply across the board.

it does apply across the board.

like I said, people who ordered things on-line that are priced too low due to an admin error have consistently had the deal honoured, because they entered into a contract at a given price, as stated by the company.

 

I'd agree that if the tenant made a mistake and paid too much, this overpayment would be due back to the tenant.

 

further to this, if the tenant made a mistake and paid too little they should have to make up the shortfall.

 

however, neither of those situations happened here,

 

what actually happened is that the tenant was advised by the agent of the landlord to pay £x rent, and they did.

 

now a year later they are saying, sorry we meant £x + £y,

 

that's just the same as when retailers say, no sorry, we meant this... they change the price at a later date but they have to honour the contracts that they've entered into where the lower price has been asked for and money has changed hands.

 

the agent asked for amount £x, the tenant paid amount £x.

 

I would have thought that contract law would have been on the tenants side.

just the same as it is when people buy obviously miss-priced things at a massively reduced rate from on-line shops.

[NewSAHD]

Hi, been out in the snow, so missed out a bit on what's been passing here!

 

I've been following this thread with some interest though and the debate is very interesting.

 

All that aside, we seem to be moving in to the realms of fantasy here. And I should know, I spend a fair bit of time there from time to time too

 

The killer, for me, is that the rent WAS increased 12 months ago and the increase in rent WAS paid.

 

Sure, the agent made a mistake, clearly, but the landlord may well view it simply as a mistake. One that they are likely to view as a mistake that can be easily rectified, either

- by way of requesting that AlreadyInUse pay, or

- by way of Solicitors issuing a Letter Before Action/claim demanding that AlreadyInUse pay.

 

A further killer, here, is that Aequitas quite rightly said earlier that we do not have all the facts.

 

But, in this day and age of email, text and so on, I'm guessing there is a (virtual?) paper trail where the Landlord contacted AlreadyInUse 12 months or so ago and stated - "I am increasing your rent to Y" - , so, to the Court (and we should always have an eye to the Court perhaps) the intention of the parties at that time was clear.

 

The Agent then took over and said "please pay X" and for reasons not fully clear AlreadyInUse did not correct them; arguably this is clearly a mistake on the part of all parties, but the intention of the parties at that time was clear too.

 

Most tellingly, for me, is that the Agent did not write saying "We have just taken over and believe you are paying too much rent, please pay X" or some such.

 

Another thing that occurs to me is that, in law (at least what I remember of my studies) there is a legal concept of "equity", namely, fairness. BUT I remember that the key phrase was "for equity to prevail you must come to the Court with clean hands"

 

AlreadyInUse has already said he/she ""agreed to the increase" so, perhaps, knew full well what had happened when the Agent took over. Again, tellingly, AlreadyInUse did not contact the Agent and say ""hey, the landlord wrote to me last month and increased my rent, which I paid. You're lowering the rent this month and as I've just paid too much rent last month, please can I have a refund?"

 

I'm being robust here deliberately, so as to be Devil's Advocate.....

 

AlreadyInUse, hi, we all seem to have swarmed over your post, but on this last point I think you are really going to struggle to come up with a plausible explanation as to why you did not correct the Agent, or, at least, raise a query with them at the time. Only you can answer this.

 

And, again, only you can answer what the Landlord exchanged with you/sent to you to have you pay the increase in rent 12 months ago, even if you did not correct the Agent's own mistake, or misunderstanding, by your own oversight, mistake, or hopeful expectation that your silence would allow this to go unnoticed.

 

Sorry, rereading that I realise how harsh that may come across, but if we cannot argue this amongst ourselves sensibly now and AlreadyInUse wishes to stick to his/her guns then any subsequent arguments won't be on an anonymous forum (where none of us are lawyers), but a very real Court, with lawyers who do this day in, day out.

 

As before, look forward to hearing any contrary views.

Edited December 22, 2009 by NewSAHD
Crossed with danielr's post, who usually I see myself agreeing with, but here, less so :)

[AlreadyInUse]

Finally have an update on this. Hope the thread hasn't gone completely cold!

 

I got an email from the agents today:

Sorry for the delay in responding but I have been awaiting clarification from **** regarding the rent increase, **** have confirmed that the rent was increased to £x+y with effect from 10/09/2008, the standing order mandate was increased in October with a cheque paying for the shortfall in rent of £y, we then wrote to you in November regarding changing the standing order mandate to pay us direct, we used the figure that was on the tenancy agreement provided by ****, we were later notified by **** that the amount quoted was incorrect, we subsequently wrote to you on 04/03/2009, 10/08/2009 & 10/08/2009 and 08/09/2009, therefore the deposit refund stands.

Don't know what these subsequent communications refer to (two on one day?) but I'm thinking of responding thusly:

Thanks for getting back to me and clarifying your position. However, I must again point to the contradictory information and instructions I received from your office. Subsequent to ****'s rent increase to £x+y effective from 10/09/2008, your office wrote to me on 4/11/2008 requesting £x per month in rent. I interpreted this as a proposed rent decrease, and was happy to accept it as I had been intending to terminate my tenancy as a result of the prior increase. I was unwilling to agree to any further attempts to raise the rent. When your office wrote to me on 29/09/2009 asking for an increase from £x to £x+y (acknowledging that the rent was indeed set at £x at that time) I therefore refused and gave notice to quit my tenancy.

 

Any comments, feedback, advice, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Do you think I should go further and point out directly that the error lies with them for giving me contradicting information and therefore they should be liable for any associated cost? That's basically my position, after all.

 

Thanks!

 

And Happy New Year!