Landlord Wont Give Back Bond

[jec]

Hi, new to this particular thread, but have used forum sucessfully to sue natwest.

Anyway, I write on behalf of my daughter.

She recently finished her degree at Cardiff Uni. She rented a room in the same house for two years. She left owing no outstanding monies and I personally cleaned her room impecably. Her landlord, refuses to give back her 250.00 bond because she was late paying her rent twice. Can anyone advise.

Jec

[barracad]

Please can you clarify - when you say she was late paying her rent, I assume you mean that all rent has now in fact been paid up, and the deposit isn't being held because rent is still outstanding?

 

If so, the landlord has no right whatsoever to withold the deposit or any part of it as a charge for 'late payments' or similar.

[Jeanjaquessmoothie]

I'd get the landlord to put it in writing the exact reasons for with holding the bond. If it's due to late payment of rent that has now been paid, he's got no legal standing what so ever.

 

As said above, could you provide further details.

[MrShed]

Agree 100% with JJS, no legal basis for this being withheld IF it is due to late rent not outstanding rent.

[jec]

Hi,

As said she left no outstanding monies. She has paid everything up to date. She was late but always paid before the month's end - she was a uni student after all, he must have gotten that from many other students.

She has threatened leagl action, but he replied 'bring it on'. He owns the lettting agency. He has given back the bond to the other 5 flat mates.

[MrShed]

Proceed with legal action then. Its a complete no brainer this one.

[Planner]

Theres you answer then, you need "to bring it on".

 

Write a letter asking for a reason as to why deposit is witheld, if no reason other than the one hes already mentioned then you would like the deposit returning in 14 days.

 

If this isnt successful, then a letter before (LBA) action giving a further 14 days and then you will submitt a claim to the county court (fill in the N1 claim form and send it along with your LBA).

 

When that 14 days up, you "bring it on" and submit the claim.

 

Out of interest, you say the LL is also the letting agents, are they members of any professional organistaion by any chance? or one of the unis 'registered landlords'? if so I would suggest a compalint to them in addition to the above court action.

[jec]

The LL is a letting agent, but he also let thru 4let, which is the co. that my daughter has a contract with.

 

Ok phoned letting agent number and told them we had a copy oth the contract and they appear to be breaking the law. The girl would not help until I told her I had contacted Cardiff Trading Standards and the NUS and would be pursuing a legal claim, when she backed down a little. She would not give an address to me for the rogue B*****d but will give it to my daughter tommorrow when she goes to see them. She did not like the mention of trading standards and said she would do all she could to settle the matter and she herself on behalf of 4let.co.uk do not recommend his behaviour. It would appear that he has parted ways with them and they no longer represent him.

Will post when I get further info.

 

Cheers Jec

[jec]

Bit more info if it helps. As I said she let thru 4let.co.uk Cardiff. But half way thru the last year, Rehman the landlord ceased using them and took the money himself in cash each month and refused to issue receipts. The kids did not sign a new contract. 4let did not inform them of any change to the contract, 4let did not tell them that they were no longer the agents. Infact only the LL verbally did. So I take it as - the original contract being the only one - is the leagal and binding one. Am I correct? And if so, 4let are legally culpable?? Please advise. And if so do we issue legal proceedings with them????????????????(4let.co.uk)

 

Jec

[MrShed]

The contract has always been with the landlord, therefore it was and is the landlord that is legally culpable NOT 4let.

[jec]

The contract has always been with the landlord, therefore it was and is the landlord that is legally culpable NOT 4let.

Are u sure, only 4let are on the contract not Rehman, in fact it does not mention him it clearly states the the co;ntract is with 4let only as agents.

[MrShed]

4let acts as the landlords agent. In a legal sense, this means that they are one and the same person.

[jec]

4let acts as the landlords agent. In a legal sense, this means that they are one and the same person.

Hi shed,

 

OK so do we issue legal proceedings with 4let? named as agents.

[MrShed]

No, with the landlord.

[jec]

No, with the landlord.

Cheers Mr Shed,

 

Will try to get address for LL, btw what legally are the letting agents responsible for when you sign a contract with them only??

 

Cheers Jec

[MrShed]

In respect to yourself, nothing. It is ENTIRELY the landlord. However, the landlord can in turn then seek legal recourse against the agent.

 

Basically the chain works like this:

 

Tenant -> Landlord -> Agent - where the arrow means "is contracted with".

[jec]

In respect to yourself, nothing. It is ENTIRELY the landlord. However, the landlord can in turn then seek legal recourse against the agent.

 

Basically the chain works like this:

 

Tenant -> Landlord -> Agent - where the arrow means "is contracted with".

 

Thank you Sir,

 

Very interesting. The only reason why my daughter and her fellow students went with 4let was because they were afraid of being 'burnt'. 4let was a registered agency and therefore they thought this afforded them safety against the likes of the rogue landlords out there. So for future info all of our children going to uni be advised a reputable letting agency means SQUAT - you are still at the mercy of theives like Rahmen, your signed contract with the letting agency is worthless. Why then do we have contracts ant tandc's??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[MrShed]

Would recommend that you edit that - libellous post.

[Esio Trot]

No, with the landlord.

 

Not necessarily.

 

MrShed and I have tossed this matter about in other threads and forums - and I contend that the above may not be the only avenue.

 

Bit more info if it helps. As I said she let thru 4let.co.uk Cardiff. But half way thru the last year, Rehman the landlord ceased using them and took the money himself in cash each month and refused to issue receipts. The kids did not sign a new contract. 4let did not inform them of any change to the contract

 

No new contract was signed, so the original one is the only legal base to work from. The first point to establish is whether the deposit was held by the agent as Stakeholder or Landlords Agent, if the former, then 4let should be named on any legal action.

 

Although 4let are "agents" for the landlord and the landlord is ultimately the person responsible in all other aspects of a tenancy, this does not override the duty of care that holding deposits as Stakeholder entails.

 

The TDS website has a definition of Stakeholder:

 

A “Stakeholder” is a person or firm who holds the deposit as a quasi-trustee on behalf of both parties [this may vary in Scotland] and who cannot release it without the consent of both parties.

 

ARLA also state that money being held as Stakeholder is a quasi-trustee position on behalf of both parties

 

Many agents do not realise that if the TA is silent on how the deposit is held, the assumption in law is that it is Stakeholder.

 

JEC's daughter needs to carefully read the contract she signed before embarking on a dedicated course of action.

[jec]

Hi Esio Trot

 

MANY THANKXXXXX

It prompted me to talk to a solicitor within the CAB who specialises in Cardiff with contractual law and he has come up against this before and advises the same. The letting agent is the contractual party with my daughter. The letting agent's agreement says they will hold the bond and it would be returned if the terms and conditions are met. They agree they were. However, for some reason they gave it to the landlord, the rest you know.

 

Jec

[Aequitas]

Originally Posted by TDS-FAQ's

A “Stakeholder” is a person or firm who holds the deposit as a quasi-trustee on behalf of both parties [this may vary in Scotland] and who cannot release it without the consent of both parties.

 

I do not think the words in red are correct.

[jec]

Originally Posted by TDS-FAQ's

A “Stakeholder” is a person or firm who holds the deposit as a quasi-trustee on behalf of both parties [this may vary in Scotland] and who cannot release it without the consent of both parties.

 

I do not think the words in red are correct.

 

Could you elaborate please?

 

Thanks

Jec

[Esio Trot]

Originally Posted by TDS-FAQ's

A “Stakeholder” is a person or firm who holds the deposit as a quasi-trustee on behalf of both parties [this may vary in Scotland] and who cannot release it without the consent of both parties.

 

I do not think the words in red are correct.

 

I take the opposite view and would contend that because of the quasi-trustee status of stakeholder deposits, consent on both sides is needed. It does not need to be express consent though.

 

We keep the deposits for many our our let-only landlords. When the tenant vacates they sometimes do not authorise us to return deposits. In this case we write to them stating that unless we hear from them within 7 days, the deposit will be refunded to the tenant (if we hear nothing then we have implied consent).

 

Another example is that five years ago our agency was sued by a tenant for non-return of a deposit of £1400 (it was a let-only but we held the deposit). The landlord argued that rent exceeding this amount was owed; the tenant stated that rent was fully paid. Neither would provide us with evidence. The case was dismissed at the hearing as the amount was disputed and we had no evidence from either party. To this day neither party has retracted their claim and we still have no evidence from either party and the money remains in our account.

[jec]

Hi

Daughter went to 4let.co.uk today, they told her to go away. They told her that they had an exclusive contract with Rahmen which states that he gets all deposits as soon as they are paid. She told them her contract was not with him but with them, but they said too bad. They would not give the address of the landlord. They told her that the original landlord who signed their contract 'died' a few months ago. they say they can not give her the new details because it is a 'contentious issue'??????????? "It beggars belief"!!!! She reminded them of their legal duty of care and asked why the did not hold the deposit in a separate safe account they said they had never heard of it before as they were Polish and it is not done that way in Poland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

What about them apples folks:mad:

[Ed999]

As a tenant, it makes no sense to use a letting agent unless you have satisfied yourself that it is reputable. The Trading Standards officer will tell you whether a particular agency is reputable or not, and the University's accomodation department should keep a list of reputable agencies.

 

Certainly it seems unwise to use a fly-by-night bunch of foreigners, who may flee back to Poland with your money at any moment!

 

Also, you can make a search in the County Court judgements register, or current equivalent, against the landlord for evidence of his circumstances. This will reveal any unpaid County Court debts he may have.

 

As a matter of law, a stakeholder must hold the stake money! It cannot be released until the contract is fully performed. If there is a dispute as to whether this has happened, it is prudent for the stakeholder to retain the stake money until a court order is made as to what shall become of it.

 

If the tenant entered into a contract with an agent, in which (as here) the agent is clearly identified as an agent, then the agent stands in place of the principal (the landlord), who has liability for all lawful acts of his agent, as ever.

 

But, as a matter of the law of agency, the tenant has to sue the landlord, not the agent. The Court might, however, grant an order for substituted service on the agent, if you do not have the landlord's address.

 

In any event, report the matter to the Trading Standards officer. He may already be considering legal action against the landlord or the agent on another matter, if this is a rogue landlord. He may also know the current whereabouts of the landlord.

 

You will not obtain an order for substituted service unless you are prepared to prove to the Judge that you have made all reasonable enquiries to locate the landlord.

 

If the landlord has "done a runner", however, your chances of enforcing any judgement you might obtain are not good!

 

If he has outstanding warrants against him in the County Court judgements register, this also indicates that the chances of enforcing payment are poor.