Company office for service of documents, Uni daughters woes Options

[essexdriver]

Hi,

I'm about to embark on a small claims case against a letting agent (who is also the landlord) set up as a limited company.

My daughter at uni had to cancel a student let. I'm her guarantor - you know the one with the money!

We gave notice and I paid over the penalty charge of 3 months rent. The arrangement was that if they found a replacement tenant during that time they would refund an amount equal to the charge minus the length of vacancy. During the first month another student took the room, and paid a reservation/admin fee. Happy days I thought we'd get two months worth of the charge back.

But no, the landlord/agent decided to return that student's money and renovate the flat. So sorry no money due.

Now I think that's unfair, it was their choice not to continue with a viable tenancy so they should honour the arrangement.

I've tried on a number of occasions to negotiate a settlement but the owner is just not having it. I also found out my daughter paid a reservation fee as the other student did but also a fee for inspections during the tenacy and cleaning the room. Well none of that was needed was it! But of course all fees are non-refundable.

So we'll have a go at getting that bit back as well. So we'll go as joint claimants, there's a total of just under £1000 at stake

Right, question is do I have serve on the company's registered office or their place of work. The registered office is the accountant somewhere in Wales and they're really slow in passing on things to the owner. Obviously by being very slow there could be a default judgement against the owner before he even sees it. But that'll be unfair.... wouldn't it?

Thanks for reading

Oh before anyone mentions it the agent has failed to sign up to any redress scheme and the arbitration scheme in the lease was stopped back in 2016.

[Advertisement]

[Glacier2]

The court will serve the claim, not you. The company address is the only good address for service.

Obviously by being very slow there could be a default judgement against the owner before he even sees it. But that'll be unfair.... wouldn't it?

Alls fair in love and war as they say. A PPC wouldn't hesitate to look for a default judgement in a similar situation.

[notmeatloaf]

God I don't miss renting.

What was the exact wording of the terms that you got your notice money back if a new tenant was found? Presumably there was some provision for the landlord to refuse unsuitable tenants?

Are you sure the landlord refused the tenant to redecorate, or have you assumed it? It seems strange they would risk having no tenant for the sake of two months rent.

As for the rest of the charges, were they specified in her tenancy agreement? Just because someone else didn't pay for them doesn't mean your daughter didn't agree them, although charging for inspections seems ludicrous.

[DancingDad]

Explain what you mean by that the landlord failed to sign up for any redress scheme???
By law, landlords have to protect deposits within an approved scheme and failure to do so can lead to a court awarding damages to the tune of three times the deposit.
If this challenge is available to you, use it within the small claim, it could concentrate landlords mind wonderfully. Even if they win on the rest, that they have very little defence for.

On the tenancy agreement will be an address for the landlord. That is the one to use unless you have particular information to say it is no longer valid.


I've seen cases similar before BTW. While it would be excellent if a landlord acted honourably and refunded if they let out again, nothing forces them to.
Given the hassle from some tenants, why risk another when you have three months rent in your pocket and can take some risk free time to re decorate?
It can be argued that they have a duty to mitigate losses but that is against a signed agreement that presumably would not be found unfair.

[southpaw82]

It can be argued that they have a duty to mitigate losses

Not in a lease.

[DancingDad]

It can be argued that they have a duty to mitigate losses

Not in a lease.

I did qualify the statement

It depends on whether or not the agreement to pay back came with the lease or as a separate agreement.
The lease seems to have said, three months cancellation notice.
With that the landlord can simply sit back for three months and do nothing without fear.
But if they then agreed to conditionally refund, that would be outside the lease and therefore mitigating losses may come into it.
Devil will be in the details as always.


Got to say that having babysat my son through uni rentals, some of the lease terms and landlords are shocking.
Especially for guarantors.
One proposed a guarantee that tried to hold me liable for other student's within the shared house if they defaulted.
Which seemed common and resulting in tales of woe from totally innocent parents.
My attitude was I will be liable for debts directly relating to my son, you have another guarantor(s) for the other tenants.
Many discussions over Jointly and Several Liability

[essexdriver]

Thanks for the responses.

To answer Dancing Dad - letting agents have been required by law since 2014 to belong to a government approved redress scheme (Redress Schemes for Lettings Agency Work and Property Management Work (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc) (England) Order 2014. I have an email from the owner saying his firm does not belong to a scheme as he is a "small business". However from Companies House info it seems the company owns some £12.5M worth of property (no doubt mortgaged up). My daughter didn't get as far as paying over the deposit because she cancelled prior to the lease starting. The local authority enforce and can fine up to £5K for non-compliance (plus keep the money). That's got to be easier than pounding car parks and issuing penalty notices surely. But no, the LA say since they've had no complaints they don't have an enforcement policy for that. Well a bit of prodding with a sharp stick is underway for them.....

Notmeatloaf - my daughter knows the student that wanted to take over the room and I have his email to me confirming when he paid the deposit and when they returned it and why. The office manager I contacted about my refund also said redecoration and refurb was to take place.

The lease is silent on replacement tenants if the term has not started (which is this case) you just pay a penalty. However, when we first raised the need to cancel with the office manager it was then we had an exchange of emails saying they would refund the balance of the charge if another tenant took over the room.

I'm going to try to get her "cleaning etc" charge refunded by using the Consumer Rights Act. They may say the charge is non-refundable but a) it's got to be an unfair contract term if it's not subsequently used and b) there was no parity here in negotiation, she's a young student needing accomodation, they're a bullish company saying take it or leave it. OK it may be tenuous but it's her £125 and since we are trying to get the penalty charge refunded it's worth a try. If we win we win.

Hi Glacier - the lease gives an office address for service in connection with the lease but the company's registered address is elsewhere. I always thought the point of a registered address is that is where formal documents must be served on a corporate body (who may have lots of outlets). So it's not unreasonable to use a registered address? The owner complained that I had written to his accountant rather than him when I set out my arguements for a refund but that was the address that's registered at Companies House. Mind you, the response I got wouldn't have been any different no matter where I sent the letter!

Cheers all.

[The Rookie]

In terms of any subsequent enforcement (Bailiffs) you want an address where there are assets......

[Redivi]

Or freeze a bank account

The OP presumably knows where the rent payments went

[cp8759]

Or freeze a bank account

The OP presumably knows where the rent payments went

+1, I've helped someone before get money out of a landlord by going after their bank accounts, it can be very effective.

The court will serve the claim, not you. The company address is the only good address for service.

Any claimant can inform the court that the sealed form should be returned to him for service, though it's been ruled that if due to an admin error the court serves anyway, service is valid. As for this proposition that you can only serve the "company address", what is the basis for this assertion?