A furious man who shouted at an estate agent after forfeiting his rental deposit has appeared in court.
John Webster failed the credit check and was told by the unnamed agent in Sleaford, Lincolnshire, that he could not have his £303 holding deposit back.
Webster went to remonstrate with the agent and ‘lost it’.
Prosecuting at Lincoln magistrates court, Marie Stace said that Webster was “in a rage” and the manager thought he was going to hit him.
“He continued to shout and get up in the estate agent’s face and was told that they would call the police if he didn’t calm down.
“When leaving the office he tapped on the window and said ‘It’s a cold time of the year not to have any windows’.
“One of the staff members was left in tears and another locked the door to the office when they worked alone as they no longer felt safe.
“In his police interview he admitted getting angry as he felt that he was being ripped off.”
Webster admitted using threatening behaviour and was given a 12-month conditional discharge. He was also ordered to pay £85 and a £21 victim surcharge.
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/man-who-lost-it-after-3794417
Comments (19)
To Robert May
on cases like this, we run credit checks only, but we take 3 months rent in advance and TT has to stay 2 months in front for the term. honest straight forward tenants this is not a problem, so far (touching wood) we have had no issues.
If I was doing lettings for a living I’d have all tenants (where practical) paying monthly but 2 months in advance, wouldn’t hold a deposit, but have a robust ‘will pursue’ policy on arrears and dilapidations.
Agents need to be wary that failed referencing does not mean a tenant has been deceitful or attempted to mislead anyone.
Now it is possible to cost effectively pre- reference tenants it’s possible to work out which tenants are referenced and which are required to prove income.
The Government guidance document for agents includes advice on when a holding deposit might be forfeit – misleading the agent / landlord is one of those instances.
I am sure Robert Webster will not be accepted by any local agent for even referencing now. There is no mention when this event took place so whether the fee act applied is speculation in my view.
From June last year the reservation fee became 1 weeks rent. this fee becomes non returnable should a tenant falsify an application or withdraws from the application or provides false or misleading information.
I suggest that if anyone is in doubt they should read – Tenant Fees Act 2019: Guidance for landlords and agents
Until it is tested it is possible for SA105 applicants to fail referencing but not mislead on their income, and that’s the p[roblem
A self employed applicant might submit accurate recent income (not falsified) but fail referencing because they submit SA105 tax returns that show historic income and which have been designed to reduce the tax they pay. For agents and referencing firms to be judge and jury over some applications, with no right to appeal what is misleading seems wrong.
The tenant fee ban has exposed a weakness that disadvantages applicants who cannot pass a GI/30 calculation.
“Material Fact” comes into play and the onus is on the applicant to answer truthfully. The habit of “I think it is around £per month” doesn’t work. A frivolous claim to retain the holding deposit is likely to get kicked out in court and unwise for a landlord or agent to take that stance.
I have twice been physically assaulted whilst in the course of my duties – neither of those times did I make the industry news pages.
Whilst I wasn’t at all chuffed with the experiences, I put them down to the massive strain that the buying and selling process puts upon people – and unfortunately some people don’t handle strain as well as others.
There is no excuse for violence – in any but the most desperate of situations – and no-one should have to face this kind of abuse in the course of their work.
ANY kind of abuse, for that matter.
Likewise. The behaviour described here is par for the course really. Fair play to the agent for prosecuting, but we don’t even pick the phone up for similar. The verbal abuse that we get on the phone is even worse sometimes – my staff have been called vile names, effed and jeffed at and other such behaviour and it’s all in a days work unfortunately
I’ve 999d on maybe 3 occasions, but cancelled the call when the abusive person left the office.
I don’t think anyone would condone violence or aggression but if this happened after the tenant fee ban, there is a 2nd side to the story that perhaps was not fully considered by the magistrate.
It’s possibly worth finding out when all this took place he might be correct in reasonably expecting a refund; if the tenancy did not proceed, the holding deposit became a fee.
The holding deposit should be sufficient to restrain a prospective tenant from wasting your time and not necessary to charge the maximum full one weeks rent … £100 is enough?
£100 is definitely not enough in many cases, and wouldn’t be anywhere near enough to discourage most people from wasting our time.
If he has just been prosecuted then i would imagine this happened before the fee ban came into play.
Not a lot of information in the story, but the idea of a Holding fee, is that if the Tenant decides Not to take the contract, then they forfeit their Holding fee of up to a max of 1 weeks rent.
If a Landlord ( or their Agent ) decides Not to grant a the tenancy ( possibly because they don’t like the result of a reference check ) then the fee is returned.
Or the tenant has not been telling the truth in his application.
£303 ‘holding deposit’? Interesting, it sounds like a fee to me!
It will be interesting to hear why the prospective tenant couldn’t have his deposit back.
If they have misled on the referencing and they fail they forfeit the holding deposit.
That bit of the tenant fee ban must have passed me by, where can I read up on that? There won’t have been time for there to be case law so where has it been decided agents and landlords can ‘fine’ tenants rather than charge them a fee.
from experience – it used to fall under the misrepresentation act – I suspect that has been superceeded but the the prinicple will remain . Entitlement to claim all losses due to a fraudulant representation. (or with no reasonable belief it is the truth)