Update

[chickpea]

So...

Went to see new agent this morning, all very reassuring.

However, he has suggested we shouldn't move agents until the issues over who caused the leak are dealt with, and doesn't think that can be sorted before the next rent due date (Christmas day), so has suggested we wait until January to move.

In the meantime, he repeated Richlist's suggestions - that we ensure deposit is protected etc - but also asked us to get copies of the credit checks and referneces from our current agent. He did say that they would almost certainly refuse, citing data protection, but said that as we had paid for the checks, we were entitled to see them.

We then went to our current agency director, with a copy of the plumber's report that now clarifies the cause of both the leak and the previous air lock - both caused by the tenant.

1/ director refuses to allow us copies of credit checks and references, saying that we only paid for the searches to be carried out - and that, in fact, the tenants paid for the checks. (work that one out!)

2/ he still will not commit to saying that the deposit is protected.

He says that his book keeper says the money has left their account by BACS, that's all. He also told me that the info on the DPS given in the tenancy agreement is all that he is obliged to provide to the tenant, and once again repeated that there is no case law against depositis protected at the 11th hour.

I argued that I was concerned that we would be held liable and could be taken to court for 3x deposit, but he said "no,no, I,as agent, would also be responsible so you have to trust that I know what I'm doing."

I have looked through as much info on deposit protection schemes as I can find, but I still can't understand whether info on the scheme, given in the AST is enough to satisfy the 14 day rule.

Nor can I find out whether a deposit that is declared as "as yet unprotected" on the DPS site, can at the same time be lodged with the scheme but simply not cleared - and therefore fulfils the legal requirements.

I am getting myself in a state about this, but the agency director couldn't see the problem and told me to simply stop worrying.

[Grampa]

He is half right on a number of points:

1 The tenant is the person who would start a x3 deposit claim and could name either the landlord, agent or both as the defendants. You might not know until the claim has been started.

2 You are the client and he cant claim data protection on the references (though it is common to do so). Though he could be difficult about giving you a copy I see no reason why he cant at least show you the details in the office to confirm they were done and to would standard. If he wont at least do that I would suspect they were not done.

3 Though deposits are supposed to be protected within 14 days recent case law has allowed to be be done later without penalty

[chickpea]

Thanks Grampa.

We contacted Homelet, who are supposed to have done the checks and they suggested that it is the agent's right to choose whether to show us the credit checks etc.

However, on several other more "official" sites (like the TPO), it says that we should have informed the agent at the start of the refernce check process so that both the tenant and the person writing the references would know that their info was being shown to a third party.

I've also spoken to the DPS again, as the deposit is still showing as unprotected. From what they told me, the agent can put the deposit into a holding account with them and then has to move it to the account for the individual property - if it's not allocated after 3 weeks,the deposit is returned to the agent seemingly.

This being so, I'm now concerned that the agent can quite truthfully reassure me that the deposit has left his hands and gone to the DPS...but that it may never make it to the property account and will end up going back to the agent, who will still maintain that he transferred it by BACS etc...

The agency director got pretty uptight when I challenged what he was trying to tell us, which doesn't make me feel any better. He brought out the "I've been in this job for 48 years, what do I know?" line, and tried to tell me that I had no worries at all about either the mangement or the tenants - that there was nothing the tenants could do to the property to cause me a problem

. Of course, I know that is absolutely not true! He simply waved off every concern I brought up with him, as if I was some dumb female who knew nothing.

Now, of course, I'm concerned that if we have to wait until the end of Janary to leave his management, he may deny that he ever said we could terminate our contract.

I'm also worried that if we manage to get to see the references and checks and they aren't what they should be, the new agent will be reluctant to take us on - he did say that they needed to know that the tenants were ok.

Can you tell I'm pulling my hair out??!!??

[Carryon Regardless]

Gaining the references and credit checks has no value, they're already T's. The opportunity for prevention has passed.

Having your G'tor correctly signed in is now your protection.

If you are going to stay with the A for a period longer surely your action (or inaction to dispense with the service) shows you are ok with the situation as is or you would dump 'em sooner.

Please show me an honest motive for the A not to pass the deposit for you to protect, whatever it's status with the DPS.

[chickpea]

Cor - we want to dump the agent asap. However, as I said, the new agent fears that a/ the neccesary paperwork to satisfy them taking on the property (setting up standing orders, viewing the property, meeting the tenants etc) cannot be done in time for the next rent due date (25th December), and b/ that if the agent knows we are planinng to leave, he will do nothing to address the situation of who is going to pay for the plumber and damage caused by the leak.

It was the new agent who asked us to request to see the credit checks, references - his arguement being again, that they would need to be satisfied that the tenants meet criteria before taking us on, but also that if the current agent has NOT done the checks/been honest about their findings, we have (another) reason to take the matter further.

I've checked the status of the deposit this morning and it is now protected.