It gets worse...

[Carryon Regardless]

They should be able to provide the information, as required for the T's, so you can check.

Are you aware that if unprotected by agent you are liable ?

[chickpea]

I am aware.

The tenancy agreement says they can confirm that they do use one of 3 TDP schemes, and I understand they have 14 days to lodge the deposit and confirm they have done so with the T. Should I ask for a copy of the confirmation?

My husband has phoned the relevant consumer advice line, who transferred him over to the business department of trading standards. They are now going to have to pass this to a team leader to look into and we have a reference number and can expect a call within the next couple of days.

Seemingly, claiming you're a member of a regulatory body when you're not is a big deal.

[kerbut]

Tracy

I am not a plumber and know anything about plumbing apart from turning on a tap and water comes out, but did have a problem a couple of years ago when a tenant put one of those rubber hose type hair washing things onto both taps on the bath. I had a call from the tenant of another flat to say he had water coming through his ceiling. It turned out the tenant on the ground floor had mixed direct water with indirect water with the hair washing device and overflowed the header tank, don't suppose your tenant had done the same ?

Edit: If I had read the thread to the end I would have realised it was a different case senerio to mine,but my case might be useful to others in the future.

[Richlist]

Kerbut, the header tank should overflow to outside the property but its possible that the volume of water was more than the overflow could handle. I've also seen overflow pipes where the joints/ elbows are not watertight.

Actually I had a similar situation.

A few years back a tenant complained that every time she used the washing machine the water tank overflow would run. I thought she was nuts and virtually ignored her. After the same complaint a number of times I told her that she would have to demonstrate the leaking overrflow. Sure enough she showed me and it did leak. I was totally baffled UNTIL I realised the washing machine was hot and cold fill. The cold was mains pressure and the hot was gravity fed from the hot water tank. When the washing machine was on and it required water it opened both vaves in the machine. Because the cold pressure was 100psi and the hot was about 5 psi, the cold water forced the hot back up the pipe and into the cold tank where it overflowed.

The fix was to make the machine cold fill only.

[Carryon Regardless]

A 1 way valve, like the one required for the boiler fill loop, should stop the back feed.

[chickpea]

So...if you found yourself signed up with an agency you believed to be a member of the NAEA, (but weren't), had parted with £240 plus your first month's 12% fee (which should have been 10%), found out that they didn't offer any kind of out-of-hours service (despite informing you that they did) and were lumbered with potentially problem tenants, what would you do?

Do we have a case for breaking our relationship with the agency? If so, can we expect any kind of recompense from the costs we've already paid them? And what are our chances of taking on another management agent while we have unresolved issues with our tenants, ie regarding the costs they've caused by their own negligence?

I would never choose to deal with an agent that wasn't regulated by some kind of governing body, so we very much feel like we've been misled - and are really not happy to continue in a contract with the agents with no protection.

[Carryon Regardless]

I don't see you could demonstrate any negligence by the T's. They have used the facilities and it failed. 'If' they ran too many taps I still fail to understand where an air lock comes from, vacuum yes. If a tap is left dripping it should not cause water damage. The hose coming loose isn't negligence especially after a few days, so who caused it.

Trusting the A's to find wonderful T's isn't real, toooo many variables, tooo many ways for things to not be ideal with T's. Many of us use find only but are very involved in T vetting.

Your T's are young and silly, they have no losses to claim for either as far as I see.

You don't like your A's then dump 'em, make sure your T's make all payments to you from now, let the A's pursue you.

Realy though if you continue to receive from your T's the A's are due the correct commission.

Truth is your starting to sound like your T's, life 'aint perfect.

[Richlist]

On the basis of what you have said, in your shoes, I'd probably do the following.

1. I'd find another suitable agent....preferrably via recommendation.

2. I'd then sack the existing agents and take action thru the small claims court for reimbursement of ALL my fees paid to them.

3. I'd keep the tenants but charge them for the repairs that can be genuinely attributed to them. Failure to pay within say 28 days would then require another claim from their guarantor or the small claims court.

4. Let the tenants go at the earliest opportunity which is likely to be at the end of the fixed term......assuming you don't come to a mutual agreement with them to leave earlier.

[chickpea]

Cor - the whole water system was checked and fully functioning before the T's moved in.

The air lock issue is unclear, certainly.

But, regarding the deck shower, they messed about with it and loosened the connection to the shower head AND left the tap feeding said shower head running for what sounds like 4 days - which is what caused the water to leak through the ceiling below.

How are we, as LL's, responsible for that?? If they had left a plug in and let the bath overflow, it would be the same scenario.

Frankly, I'm ok about keeping on the T's BUT only if we are paying an agency that we can actually trust to deal with the issues they say they will.

Our letting contract says we are tied in with the agent for 6 months initially, after which we have to give them 3 months notice UNLESS they break their agreement with us - as I said,we took the time to find an agent that claimed to be a member of the NAEA, but have now found that to be false. Taking that as a warning, in addition to the other issues we've had with them since signing with them back in September, I don't feel happy about continuing to have them act for us.

I guess we'll have to see what trading standards says about things, as to whether we're in a position to leave the letting contract.

[chickpea]

Thanks Richlist.

I assume plumber's reports will show exactly who/what is to blame for the plumbing issues, so that should clarify who has to pay.

I note that the agent IS a member of the Property Ombudsman, so maybe we need to contact them regarding our complaints.

Our only expectations of the agents was that they would fulfill the contract that we entered into with them.

[Carryon Regardless]

We can bounce around for some time yet, me playing Devil's Advocate you getting upset.

Prior to taking your arguments to the T's or a Judge you could do with considering the likely response.

Checking the water system does not guarantee a check of each connection, to suggest such loses credibility. When the T's learn that you used it to clean the bath it becomes you that loosened it. A tap running some would go down the plug 'ole. If plug in the bath overflow comes into play.

A judge would view that serious damage is covered by insurance, if not serious no problem, he wouldn't want his time wasting.

You are unhappy that the A has lumbered you with such unworthy T's but you want to keep them.

You don't want to pay for the T's you want to keep.

I don't believe your A is as you hoped, they sound to be lacking, but expecting a profit making organisation that takes dues from an A to police in your favour is not as I would expect. You don't pay them. In this case neither does your A.

The point is that the protection that you would now hope for is less likely in real life. More likely is much effort for a patronising result, but here it's irrelevant anyway.

You hope for permission from trading standards to sack your A, She who dares gets on with it.

[chickpea]

Thanks for your input, Cor - I do actually appreciate it :-)

I hold my hands up - we have been naive in thinking that everyone is as honest as we are.

We are expecting a call from the agency director today, as well as trading standards, so let's see what's said.

[Melboy]

So...if you found yourself signed up with an agency you believed to be a member of the NAEA, (but weren't), had parted with £240 plus your first month's 12% fee (which should have been 10%), found out that they didn't offer any kind of out-of-hours service (despite informing you that they did) and were lumbered with potentially problem tenants, what would you do?

I would say you have a very strong case for leaving and your comments above would give you more than enough reasons to do just that. I would be very annoyed if I had been informed that the people I was dealing with were NOT NAEA registered after being informed by them that they were registered members especially if I had made that an important condition of using their LA services.

What you must do of course is to put all these irregularities you have discovered into a letter to the LA company and tell them that this is why you are dispensing with their services and should they wish to take the matter further than they may sue you in the Courts for any money you may owe but having taken legal advice (?) their case is very weak.

Mel.

[chickpea]

Thanks Mel.

I have found out that they haven't been a member of the NAEA since May 2008...so hardly a recent oversight.

The agents have now admitted that they USED to offer an out-of-hours emergency service, but now they don't...but their staff don't seem to have been told, nor have they changed the message on their answer phone.

They've also tried to claim that their letting contract that we signed had their old fees on, and that we are the first people to notice that they have over-charged by 2%. Nice try.

Agent has agreed to refund management fees for this month, and offered to terminate our contract with them forthwith. So, just the small matter of finding another agent who is prepared to take on the property, tenants and all issues concerned with it/them.

[Grampa]

I don't know if the fact that the agency isn't a member of NAEA is much of a arguing point unless you suffered a material loss for them now not being a member. I am not saying its right but can you put a price to it. Trading standards should be interested though.

[Richlist]

Where are you located Tracey ? Just the town/ city will do.....someone on here may be local to you and in a position to recommend a good lettings agent.

Its always best to select one thats recommended.

[chickpea]

Grandpa - I take your point.

From speaking to another agent, it seems that we should be asking for all costs to be refunded because we were sold a service, believing it to be one thing (ie regulated by the NAEA) and have since found out this was false. The issue is that we would never have signed up with that agent, had they been honest about their status - therefore, we have paid for something we haven't got and will inevitably incur costs in order to now move to an agent who does fulfil our requirements.

It will come down to what trading standards say on the subject, I guess. I can see both sides of the argument (believe it or not!).

Richlist - the property is in Pontyclun CF73. We've spoken to another local agent this morning, just to test the water for expected costs to switch and what our position is. Already, the difference in the service they offer is glaringly obvious.

[Carryon Regardless]

Grampa of interest, do you feel that an A being a member of a professional body will result in a better service.

It seems here that the A has amended their policies to reduce overheads, but now mis-represent themselves as being and doing things that aren't true.

While there are many A's that have come and gone and have little or no understanding of the legislation and so can't deal correctly for their naive clients (the LL's), this one has experience.

It can be assumed that they reached a level of competence to be accepted as a member of the organisation, practising the policies isn't really dependant on paying the subscription to keep the name on the letter head. Practising good policy comes from attitude.

Some form of 'out of hours' response service I see as a false confidence situation. It is dependant on the tradesman, he fails the service fails.

For example 2:30(am) 1st January this year we got home to a message from, well not even the T, that the front door couldn't be locked. This is 80 miles away. What they were expecting me to do that they couldn't do themselves was beyond me. My response - nowt, I slept ok (could've been the alcohol though). The T would no doubt have been happy for me to be putting in pointless effort ringing people till 5am.

Tracey I'm pleased you have a positive result from the A, possibly due to fear of hassle from the professional body.

They now lose the 5 or £600 (??) revenue from you for the next 6 month, I wonder how that compares to savings on annual subscriptions and attempting to run a call out service?

[Carryon Regardless]

Tracey there may be advantage to go Cearphilly .

[Grampa]

Grandpa - I take your point.

From speaking to another agent, it seems that we should be asking for all costs to be refunded because we were sold a service, believing it to be one thing (ie regulated by the NAEA) and have since found out this was false. The issue is that we would never have signed up with that agent, had they been honest about their status - therefore, we have paid for something we haven't got and will inevitably incur costs in order to now move to an agent who does fulfil our requirements.

It will come down to what trading standards say on the subject, I guess. I can see both sides of the argument (believe it or not!).

Richlist - the property is in Pontyclun CF73. We've spoken to another local agent this morning, just to test the water for expected costs to switch and what our position is. Already, the difference in the service they offer is glaringly obvious.

The way I see it is if the agent didnt do a certain service (that they stated they do) and you can put a figure to it then yes take them to court for it. For misleading you without a loss I cant see you getting anything.

If they charged more because they were members of NAEA that would be recoverable.

[Grampa]

Grampa of interest, do you feel that an A being a member of a professional body will result in a better service.

It seems here that the A has amended their policies to reduce overheads, but now mis-represent themselves as being and doing things that aren't true.

While there are many A's that have come and gone and have little or no understanding of the legislation and so can't deal correctly for their naive clients (the LL's), this one has experience.

It can be assumed that they reached a level of competence to be accepted as a member of the organisation, practising the policies isn't really dependant on paying the subscription to keep the name on the letter head. Practising good policy comes from attitude.

To be a member of NAEA, ARLA Nals, you have to do certain things such as have your client account certifiied by chartered accountants, have a certain level of insurance cover, be a member of the letting ombusman, have the correct type of client account. (

Also for NAEA and ARLA you have to have at least one member of staff quailifed to a certain standard.

We were members of Arla and I was the quaified member (just scraped through) though all other staff had been sent on the legal coures. But Arla is not cheap to be a member and they were always asking for fees for this and that. I only ever got one new landlord because we were members so I left and joined Nals.

Generally speaking if your agent belongs to one of these bodies you are getting certain safe guards but if you choose to is easy to get round some of them. Arla never once checked I still worked at my firm and the teaboy could have been giving out advice to a landlords without the landlords knowledge. I know of one ARLA company that has only one quaified member listed for 8-10 offices spread over 3 counties.

ARLA bang on about being the cream of the regulated bodies but they never policed themselves when I was a member.

[chickpea]

My turn to play devil's advocate - what if they are no longer a member of the NAEA because they DON'T/DIDN'T uphold the standards of the NAEA? What if they were actually thrown out of the NAEA for malpractice?

Isn't another point that you don't just go to a regulated agency because of the standards you hope they'll offer - but also because it offers you some form of protection and recourse when/if things do go wrong?

[chickpea]

Sorry, Grampa - cross-posted.

[Guest theartfullodger]

Until we get regulated and registered agents, as was planned by Labour but canceled by Dave we'll keep getting more agent problems than would have been the case...

[chickpea]

Clearly, the letting agent is actually even more incompetent than we thought - they have now refunded ALL monies we've paid to them, minus this month's management fee.

Bonkers!