An agency has “gone to ground”, allegedly owing money to landlords, a local newspaper has claimed.
eHomes, in Swaffham, Norfolk, is at the centre of allegations in the Eastern Daily Press.
The paper claims that director Victoria Steele has not protected tenants’ deposits, meaning that landlords have had to foot the bill. It is also claimed that landlords were not paid rents.
The paper also says that Steele’s previous firm, Prestige Lettings and Management, went into liquidation in 2015, owing creditors £100,000.
One landlord has apparently set up a Facebook page for people affected by eHomes. It now has some 100 members.
The Tenancy Deposit Scheme also told the paper that it is terminating eHomes’ membership. Norfolk Trading Standards are said to be aware of complaints.
Comments (4)
When I register a deposit I print off the cheque submission form. We don’t pay by cheque, but I send one to accounts to let them know it needs to be paid, one to the tenant to let them know that the process to protect it has been started and they will receive the full certificate shortly, and one to the file so I can quickly check that I’ve done it all before putting the file into the cabinet. I also print a copy of the email I send out to the utilities to let them know there is a new tenant.
Maybe I should send a copy to the Landlord too?
This is the last thing we need when people are already looking at us a chancers and thieves…
Interesting – Was ‘Gazetted’ on 5 June but the order has been temporarily suspended as of the 12th.
In other news, however, looks like Companies House was fooled by a sneaky change of name:
bit.ly/2JN33v5
not to mention several different entries under plain ole’ Victoria Steele as well…
including another start-up in January:
bit.ly/2lfrxOX
One to watch in a few months, perhaps?
surely the TDS must have known she had liquidated a previous letting agency owing tens of thousands when she applied for membership? This is the very reason, I believe there should only be one custodial scheme for deposits. It would make life somewhat easier for agents. tenants and landlords.
Yet more landlords left to carry the can. It cannot be such a difficult thing to insist that landlords are part of the deposit registration process to ensure that they receive notification when deposit is protected? Then, if as a landlord you do not receive notification of protection within 30 days you know something is wrong. Maybe insist on 30 days to protect as now with maximum 10 days thereafter to allow landlord notification?