Complaint
Upon application for the tenancy, the prospective tenants, Mr and Miss D, were charged a holding deposit/administration fee of £500 which, following their references being declined, was withheld by the Agent. Mr and Miss D complained that the fee was unfair, especially as the Agent had not fully considered all of the referencing information provided.
Complaint
Upon instruction the Landlord, Mr E, agreed with the Agent that prospective tenants would be charged a holding deposit which, in the event that the tenancy did not proceed, would be divided up with £200 due to him and £100 to the Agent. A prospective tenant was found who paid the £300 holding deposit but had to withdraw from the tenancy after subsequently losing his job. The Agent refunded the full £300 and Mr E complained that he had not received his £200.
Complaint
The prospective tenant, Miss F, paid a holding deposit and administration fees to the Agent on the condition that the landlord agreed a break clause which met her employer’s approval. Miss F asserted that an agreement had been reached that if this requirement proved impossible she would get her money back. Unfortunately, following a suitable break clause not being agreed, Miss F withdrew and the Agent stated that they would only refund half of the monies.
Complaint
After the Agent found a potential tenant who wished to move into the property immediately, Mrs E, the landlord, paid the existing tenant £500 to end the tenancy early. She did so on the assumption that the £500 holding deposit received by the Agent from the prospective tenant would mitigate her loss should the new tenancy not proceed. However, following the prospective tenant withdrawing due to personal reasons, the Agent kept the £500 holding deposit.
Complaint
Miss E (the Prospective Tenant) claimed that the failure of the Agent to advertise the property correctly and to represent both her and the landlord properly caused her to withdraw from the tenancy. Miss E requested a full refund of the £1,000 she paid to the Agent to ‘hold’ the property. The Agent responded stating that the property had been advertised correctly, that the monies represented a ‘fee of intent’ (not a holding deposit) and that, as she had withdrawn from the transaction, her payment would not be returned.
Complaint
Miss F (the Prospective Tenant) complained that, after informing the Agent that she was pregnant, they had provided a poor level of customer service by breaching the terms of the holding deposit and discriminating against her by refusing to refund the holding deposit. The Agent argued that the change in Miss F’s circumstances, divulged to them after her offer had been accepted, had inconvenienced them and the landlord, adding that Miss F’s future reduced
income and potential claim for maternity/housing benefit had left the landlord no option but to withdraw from the tenancy.
