Tenants disputing deposit deductions via Solicitor - advice?
Discussion
I have some former tenants that have moved out leaving the property in an awful condition. This is backed up by the check out inventory and I have sent them an itemised list of deductions. I will post further details later on.
After some back and forth with the tenants, I have received an email from a solicitor disputing the total amount. The former tenants are Spanish and interestingly this solicitor is also Spanish working for a UK firm. I suspect they are probably friends/acquaintances and he's doing this as a favour as I can't see the former tenants engaging and paying a solicitor for amount involved (approx £2k), of which the solicitor is making an offer of £1500 anyway.
I am happy to fight this as, frankly, I've probably undercharged them anyway and I'm annoyed with the tenants attitude towards the property and afterwards.
The solicitors email to me says opens "My name is XXX, and I am instructed on behalf of the former tenants of ADDRESS".
He doesn't name the client(s) who have instructed him.
I'd like to go back with an initial reply asking who exactly is he representing. Is that a reasonable thing to ask?
Also, are solicitors obliged to carry our identity checks on their clients, and can I ask if he has done this? I know it's none of my business, but to be honest, I'd love to rack up their costs and be awkward about this all the way. I'd bet the solicitor is not even following his firms due process in client engagement before firing off this email to me. He's even addressing me as 'Mr FIRSTNAME'. Very sloppy for a solicitor.
More details later, but just wanted to know if I can reply like this initially.
After some back and forth with the tenants, I have received an email from a solicitor disputing the total amount. The former tenants are Spanish and interestingly this solicitor is also Spanish working for a UK firm. I suspect they are probably friends/acquaintances and he's doing this as a favour as I can't see the former tenants engaging and paying a solicitor for amount involved (approx £2k), of which the solicitor is making an offer of £1500 anyway.
I am happy to fight this as, frankly, I've probably undercharged them anyway and I'm annoyed with the tenants attitude towards the property and afterwards.
The solicitors email to me says opens "My name is XXX, and I am instructed on behalf of the former tenants of ADDRESS".
He doesn't name the client(s) who have instructed him.
I'd like to go back with an initial reply asking who exactly is he representing. Is that a reasonable thing to ask?
Also, are solicitors obliged to carry our identity checks on their clients, and can I ask if he has done this? I know it's none of my business, but to be honest, I'd love to rack up their costs and be awkward about this all the way. I'd bet the solicitor is not even following his firms due process in client engagement before firing off this email to me. He's even addressing me as 'Mr FIRSTNAME'. Very sloppy for a solicitor.
More details later, but just wanted to know if I can reply like this initially.
Why do they need a solicitor, if it was as bad as you say and all your costs are legit, then tell them you are going to the TDS to their impartial adjudicator service... Too many other things to worry about in life
https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/deposit-dispu...
(Note... I assume they are completely impartial and not there to screw over the LL)
https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/deposit-dispu...
(Note... I assume they are completely impartial and not there to screw over the LL)
Du1point8 said:
Why do they need a solicitor, if it was as bad as you say and all your costs are legit, then tell them you are going to the TDS to their impartial adjudicator service... Too many other things to worry about in life
https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/deposit-dispu...
(Note... I assume they are completely impartial and not there to screw over the LL)
I don't know. But I feel I need to respond to the solicitors emails. https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/deposit-dispu...
(Note... I assume they are completely impartial and not there to screw over the LL)
Naturally, it seems this will go to adjudication, but I need to respond properly to all communication beforehand.
shopper150 said:
Du1point8 said:
Why do they need a solicitor, if it was as bad as you say and all your costs are legit, then tell them you are going to the TDS to their impartial adjudicator service... Too many other things to worry about in life
https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/deposit-dispu...
(Note... I assume they are completely impartial and not there to screw over the LL)
I don't know. But I feel I need to respond to the solicitors emails. https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/deposit-dispu...
(Note... I assume they are completely impartial and not there to screw over the LL)
Naturally, it seems this will go to adjudication, but I need to respond properly to all communication beforehand.
The bottom line is if you can't agree the deductions with them it goes to the TDS. I've been through this as a landlord and it's pretty fair, provided you have all the evidence.
I spent £12 on this book and it paid for itself many times over. I have no connection to the author but you'd imo be foolish not to get it.
edited for typo
Was the deposit placed in the correct deposit scheme?
If so, let them sort it out. (If not, you are in deep do do!)
If it was me, I'd reply to their solicitor and tell them it will be sorted through the correct channels and that no further communication will be entered into.
Let the deposit scheme sort it out, that's what it's there for.
If so, let them sort it out. (If not, you are in deep do do!)
If it was me, I'd reply to their solicitor and tell them it will be sorted through the correct channels and that no further communication will be entered into.
Let the deposit scheme sort it out, that's what it's there for.
NGee said:
Was the deposit placed in the correct deposit scheme?
If so, let them sort it out. (If not, you are in deep do do!)
If it was me, I'd reply to their solicitor and tell them it will be sorted through the correct channels and that no further communication will be entered into.
Let the deposit scheme sort it out, that's what it's there for.
Yes, it was, all properly done. In fact, one ofIf so, let them sort it out. (If not, you are in deep do do!)
If it was me, I'd reply to their solicitor and tell them it will be sorted through the correct channels and that no further communication will be entered into.
Let the deposit scheme sort it out, that's what it's there for.
the points their solicitor has raised is that ‘ It appears my clients were not provided with confirmation that the deposit was registered with the Tenancy Deposit Solutions Limited’
This is untrue as Foxtons (the estate agent) have sent me a copy of the email sent to the tenants confirming such.
Hmmmm how tempting.
Assuming you have the time this is ideal for stringing along for months.
The only problem is, as you say they are probably getting it done as a favour/mates rates.
Your first reply could be along the lines of ‘ I’m sorry but nobody of this name resides here’. That’s one letter they will have to resend.
Think of the fun you could have.
A solicitor is required to carry out Know Your Client (KYC) checks, and a new client is usually asked for photo ID and a copy of a utility bill. KYC rules are part of the anti money laundering and anti terrorist funding apparatus. The omission of the names of the clients here might be a careless slip, maybe a consequence of the solicitor drafting the letter on his own time as a favour.
Is the solicitor writing in his own name or in the name of a law firm, and, if the latter, is he a partner in the firm? If by any chance he is using the firm's name without partner approval he could wind up in trouble with the firm and with the SRA. Not so, of course, if he is a partner or has partner approval to act.
You should not ignore the solicitor. Courts and Tribunals regard doing that as bad form. Once a person is represented by a solicitor, it is good form to communicate only via that solicitor.
You could if you wish write something like this:
"Thank you for your letter of xxYY20. You have not named the clients for whom you act. You will appreciate that as a landlord I am subject to data protection rules, and I need to know the identity of the persons that you act for before I can engage in correspondence with you as their representative. Can you also please confirm that you have carried out the identity checks on your clients that the SRA requires you to carry out before acting for clients, and that your firm has a letter of engagement upon which you act for them. Naturally, I do not seek to know your terms of engagement as those would be privileged and confidential, but, as you have written on behalf of anonymous clients, it is appropriate and reasonable for me to ask these questions before corresponding further with you."
Is the solicitor writing in his own name or in the name of a law firm, and, if the latter, is he a partner in the firm? If by any chance he is using the firm's name without partner approval he could wind up in trouble with the firm and with the SRA. Not so, of course, if he is a partner or has partner approval to act.
You should not ignore the solicitor. Courts and Tribunals regard doing that as bad form. Once a person is represented by a solicitor, it is good form to communicate only via that solicitor.
You could if you wish write something like this:
"Thank you for your letter of xxYY20. You have not named the clients for whom you act. You will appreciate that as a landlord I am subject to data protection rules, and I need to know the identity of the persons that you act for before I can engage in correspondence with you as their representative. Can you also please confirm that you have carried out the identity checks on your clients that the SRA requires you to carry out before acting for clients, and that your firm has a letter of engagement upon which you act for them. Naturally, I do not seek to know your terms of engagement as those would be privileged and confidential, but, as you have written on behalf of anonymous clients, it is appropriate and reasonable for me to ask these questions before corresponding further with you."
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 September 07:11
Breadvan72 said:
A solicitor is required to carry out Know Your Client (KYC) checks, and a new client is usually asked for photo ID and a copy of a utility bill. KYC rules are part of the anti money laundering and anti terrorist funding apparatus. The omission of the names of the clients here might be a careless slip, maybe a consequence of the solicitor drafting the letter on his own time as a favour.
Is the solicitor writing in his own name or in the name of a law firm, and, if the latter, is he a partner in the firm? If by any chance he is using the firm's name without partner approval he could wind up in trouble with the firm and with the SRA. Not so, of course, if he is a partner or has partner approval to act.
You should not ignore the solicitor. Courts and Tribunals regard doing that as bad form. Once a person is represented by a solicitor, it is good form to communicate only via that solicitor.
You could if you wish write something like this:
"Thanks you for your letter of xxYY20. You have not named the clients for whom you act. You will appreciate that as a landlord I am subject to data protection rules, and I need to know the identity of the persons that you act for before I can engage in correspondence with you as their representative. Can you also please confirm that you have carried out the identity checks on your clients that the SRA requires you to carry out before acting for clients, and that your firm has a letter of engagement upon which you act for them. Naturally, I do not seek to know your terms of engagement as those would be privileged and confidential, but, as you have written on behalf of anonymous clients, it is appropriate and reasonable for me to ask these questions before corresponding further with you."
Thank you.Is the solicitor writing in his own name or in the name of a law firm, and, if the latter, is he a partner in the firm? If by any chance he is using the firm's name without partner approval he could wind up in trouble with the firm and with the SRA. Not so, of course, if he is a partner or has partner approval to act.
You should not ignore the solicitor. Courts and Tribunals regard doing that as bad form. Once a person is represented by a solicitor, it is good form to communicate only via that solicitor.
You could if you wish write something like this:
"Thanks you for your letter of xxYY20. You have not named the clients for whom you act. You will appreciate that as a landlord I am subject to data protection rules, and I need to know the identity of the persons that you act for before I can engage in correspondence with you as their representative. Can you also please confirm that you have carried out the identity checks on your clients that the SRA requires you to carry out before acting for clients, and that your firm has a letter of engagement upon which you act for them. Naturally, I do not seek to know your terms of engagement as those would be privileged and confidential, but, as you have written on behalf of anonymous clients, it is appropriate and reasonable for me to ask these questions before corresponding further with you."
He is a partner and is writing to my via email using his company email address and the firms footer/signature.
I like your suggested initial response and will go with that for now. He has also sent a second email, I will post details later today.
archie456 said:
If the (ex) tenants are communicating via a solicitor so be it, respond to them.
The bottom line is if you can't agree the deductions with them it goes to the TDS. I've been through this as a landlord and it's pretty fair, provided you have all the evidence.
I spent £12 on this book and it paid for itself many times over. I have no connection to the author but you'd imo be foolish not to get it.
edited for typo
Thanks, I will get the book and do my homework!The bottom line is if you can't agree the deductions with them it goes to the TDS. I've been through this as a landlord and it's pretty fair, provided you have all the evidence.
I spent £12 on this book and it paid for itself many times over. I have no connection to the author but you'd imo be foolish not to get it.
edited for typo
I have only once been through the deposit adjudication system, as a tenant. I had a very difficult landlord who was himself a solicitor and who tried to make huge deductions from the deposit (I had left the house in good condition). The adjudication process was swift and efficient, and it found in my favour on every disputed issue. I do not agree with the suggestion above that you should play silly buggers, OP. You appear to be a sensible and reasonable person. if you conduct the dispute in a sensible and reasonable way, and if you have good evidence to support the reasonableness of your deposit deductions, you should win.
Deposit protection and adjudication is a good system. Back in the day, landlords routinely deducted whatever the Hell they felt like.
I rented a house when I did a two year stint as an ex pat, in a place where the old style rules prevail. Everyone advised me not to pay the last month's rent, but I foolishly paid it, and the landlord, a police officer, then tried to keep the whole deposit on the most spurious grounds. I had to call in a favour and get a ginormous international law firm to send him a letter, which resulted in a cheque the next day.
Deposit protection and adjudication is a good system. Back in the day, landlords routinely deducted whatever the Hell they felt like.
I rented a house when I did a two year stint as an ex pat, in a place where the old style rules prevail. Everyone advised me not to pay the last month's rent, but I foolishly paid it, and the landlord, a police officer, then tried to keep the whole deposit on the most spurious grounds. I had to call in a favour and get a ginormous international law firm to send him a letter, which resulted in a cheque the next day.
Whilst I understand that it’s not ideal to engage in protracted discussions, this is exactly the route the tenants have chosen.
It’s taken me a lot of time and effort to resolve this and engage in communication thus far.
They can’t simply pull a settlement figure out of thin air, just because they feel like it.
I will post more details later.
It’s taken me a lot of time and effort to resolve this and engage in communication thus far.
They can’t simply pull a settlement figure out of thin air, just because they feel like it.
I will post more details later.
Edited by shopper150 on Wednesday 23 September 08:18
eldrich said:
If you want the money from them asap then don't muck about, just get on with it and don't make them resend stuff cos you are hacked off. I'd need to be very very hacked off to push back the payment date to me of a couple of grand.
Agree, but the strategy is to win. If they means squeezing them financially by increasing their costs, then so be it. I will reply, and properly, but I’m not obliged to rush. Also, if the tenants or solicitor have not followed due process, why should I ignore those facts? They certainly would not. shopper150 said:
Agree, but the strategy is to win. If they means squeezing them financially by increasing their costs, then so be it. I will reply, and properly, but I’m not obliged to rush. Also, if the tenants or solicitor have not followed due process, why should I ignore those facts? They certainly would not.
Winning is more likely if you do things properly. If you use others' bad behaviour to justify your own, a third party will judge you by those standards. If you've followed due process and they haven't, great! You have some high ground. Don't lose it by making a commercial transaction a personal project. RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
inning is more likely if you do things properly. If you use others' bad behaviour to justify your own, a third party will judge you by those standards. If you've followed due process and they haven't, great! You have some high ground. Don't lose it by making a commercial transaction a personal project.
Thanks, I do appreciate it. Sometimes it’s difficult to see past the red mist.Happy to do things properly. Initially, I do feel their solicitor should identify his clients. Is he acting for one, two, or all three of the tenants?
Also, this gives me time to prepare proper responses to the other points raised.
More later...
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
inning is more likely if you do things properly. If you use others' bad behaviour to justify your own, a third party will judge you by those standards. If you've followed due process and they haven't, great! You have some high ground. Don't lose it by making a commercial transaction a personal project.
This x 97 million. Ignore all the armchair experts who mistake aggression for effectiveness. Master Sun says that the greatest General is not he who fights many battles, but he who fights very few, and wins them all.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff