Profile incomplete
9:30 AM, 9th December 2011, About 13 years ago
Text Size
I am writing this blog to balance out another article on this website and to raise a question about whether it is reasonable for a business to be exposed to a trial by social media.
Is it even possible that a group formed on Facebook could muster up enough support to potentially bring an established business to its knees without a fair trial? Until this week I would have thought not but I have evidence that it is happening right now.
Now I’m not taking sides here, nor do I want to be a judge or a jury in a case that doesn’t effect me or my business. However, I am aware of a scenario whereby one persons word against another has been escalated to a point that could result in the collapse of an established business.
Is it right that media attention mustered up by a small group of disgruntled students and their parents could result in the suspension of a letting agent from a variety of trade organisations without a case ever going close to a court room?
The problems started when letting agent Campbells Property made a financial claim against a guarantor of a student who had allegedly soiled a mattress. The student denies the allegations and the guarantor refuses to pay the disputed damage claim.
I have spoken to a Director at Campbells who has confirmed their policy is not to take damage deposits. Instead they charge a none refundable letting fee of £220 per student and take guarantees from parents or an alternative guarantor to pay for any damages and any necessary cleaning to put the property back into a lettable condition at the end of the tenancy. Victoria campbell, a Director of the firm, told me “these terms of business are willingly entered into by around 1,500 tenants and guarantors every year with Campbells”.
The disputed bill for the soiled mattress has escalated to the point where a facebook page has been created to solicit more complaints against the letting agent. People thought to be posting in defence of the agent have been blocked from posting and had their posts removed. A completely independent letting agent was blocked mistakenly and reported this on Property118.com. He was commenting completely independently without taking sides and made this point on property118.com. He very quickly received a public apology (also on Property118.com) from the creator of the facebook thread.
To my knowledge the number of complaints equates to less that 1% of all tenants that let throughCampbellslast year. Despite this, the agents business model has been criticised to a point that the owners don’t know which way to turn.
The letting agent has been suspended from two organisations they subscribe to and now need to account for these complaints during their busiest season for letting. Note that first year students often seek accommodation 10 months in advance to secure a roof over their heads for their second and third years in university education. Some universities only allow agents that have valid accreditation to advertise to their students. Suspended agents are not allowed to advertise and their suspension is publicly displayed.
In the meantime, whilst their cases are being prepared and heard by the trade associations, the agent feels aggrieved that the reputation of their business has been besmirched to the extent that they will find it far more difficult to attract students and fill their properties in the coming year. Even if the trade organisations to which they subscribe find in their favour on every one of the complaints levied against them they stand to lose a significant amount of income and reputation whilst the case is under investigation and their memberships are under suspension.
Will the trade organisations take responsibility for any financial losses or defamation?
Is it right that a letting agent can be held to ransom by an aggrieved client in this way?
Will the trade associations risk finding in favour of their member with such financial implications as a potential court case against them by the agent on the grounds of lost income resulting in defamation of innuendo during their suspension?
From my very limited understanding of the cases in point, the agents procedures may be flawed. If I am right, they would be unlikely to be awarded the right to retain deposit moneys if they had taken them and the complaints had gone to arbitration. On this basis, I also doubt that the agents procedures would hold up to a small claims court hearing for the financial claims levied.
My understanding of the agents procedures in this case is that detailed inventories are completed, together with photographic evidence, at the commencement of each tenancy and are signed for. Inventories are also completed at the end of the tenancy and further photographic evidence is also collected. The possible flaw I can see in this procedure is that the end of tenancy the inventory is very rarely signed for as they are completed after the tenant has vacated. Therefore, it’s easy for disputes to arise and if there are two sets of photographs, one from the agent, the other from the tenants, which is to be believed?
In most cases it’s easy for landlords to demonstrate with a good inventory and photographic or video evidence when a property has been damaged, regardless of whether the tenant signs the checkout inventory or not. This is because most properties and their contents are very different. However, when there are several identical rooms within properties and the disputed damages relate to a carpet stain, a soiled mattress or a damaged piece of furniture, how can a decision as to whether the damaged item was actually the one in the room that’s subject to a damage claim? Who’s to say that mattresses were not switched between rooms by tenants or the agent? Who’s to say that either set of pictures taken even relate to the same room?
I have asked myself whether I would have joined the trade associations at all and put my business at risk in this way if I were a student landlord. However, if the best way to advertise to students was to be a member of the trade associations what choice would there be?
I would be very interested to hear what Inventory Clerks, Letting Agents and other student landlords feel about this case.
Previous Article
Rip Off Letting Agents Prey on Tenants
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
17:16 PM, 10th December 2011, About 13 years ago
The remaining unanswered question for me is this .....
"In most cases it’s easy for landlords to demonstrate with a good inventory and photographic or video evidence when a property has been damaged, regardless of whether the tenant signs the checkout inventory or not. This is because most properties and their contents are very different. However, when there are several identical rooms within properties and the disputed damages relate to a carpet stain, a soiled mattress or a damaged piece of furniture, how can a decision as to whether the damaged item was actually the one in the room that’s subject to a damage claim? Who’s to say that mattresses were not switched between rooms by tenants or the agent? Who’s to say that either set of pictures taken even relate to the same room?"
If you know of any other landlords or letting agents that specialise in the student market please ask them to comment here.
Remember, you can share all articles on Property118.com via email, Facebook and Twitter by using the "Caring is Sharing" buttons immediately below the main article.
Ben Reeve-Lewis
17:47 PM, 10th December 2011, About 13 years ago
On the orginal thread I just heard on Radio 4 about Dan Thompson. A guy who used social media to build bridges over the summer riots, who was mentioned by Camo in a parliament speech being up for an award.
This article immediately followed a piece about Putin being brought to his knees by a revolt over untransparent election pratices that some are calling the 'Russian spring', in line with the various Arab springs we heard about this year.
Thinking of the Campbell case that started this debate it makes me realise that witch hunts are a dead concept. The beauty of P118, Lanldlord Law Blog, Property tribes, is that they are driven by different forces now. You cant bullshit because internet savvy service users will always catch you out.
18:55 PM, 10th December 2011, About 13 years ago
I see i have hit a chord with this comment? i agreed to be a guarantor because i knew that if Katie couldn't pay her rent i could, i knew 100% that she would look after the property and she did, that is why this whole argument has arose, yes i agree if she fell behind i would of course pay her rent, i would agree to have paid for any damage caused, i know the items in question are not right as we have photographic evidence for them, i also have a list of things that Katie complained about to Campbell during her time in the tenancy which i wont shout about on here as it just looks like sour grapes, and i don't want to get into a, she did this & he did that on here, i understood what was expected of me as a guarantor however i don't intend to roll over and bow down to the claims that are being made by Campbell, i have however as you can all see requested that Victoria Campbell have a meeting with us to get this sorted out?
19:38 PM, 10th December 2011, About 13 years ago
I just want people to know that i did understand the implications of becoming a guarantor, but how many of you think i should not fight against the claims that Campbell are presenting us with even though we have evidence to support what we are saying? If Campbell had been happy to discuss these concerns with us instead of a blank NO these are the costs and that's that i wouldn't have searched to see if others had been in the same position as us and would have never had reason to comment. Campbell only reviewed 2 of the many items they were claiming from us, one was a bin bag that wasn't even Katie's, and the other was only a reduction? should tenants or guarantors just accept that landlords can claim for what they want, keep their mouths shut and just pay it???
20:30 PM, 10th December 2011, About 13 years ago
Agree with a lot of these comments. The agent should have done the checkout in the presence of the tenants. It is unfair and poor form to set up this type of facebook page which could easily destroy the good name/business of the agents. We haven't really got the full story, until fully investigated we won't know. But innocent until proven guilty springs to mind. Finally, quality and exemplary customer service makes a huge difference.
1:59 AM, 11th December 2011, About 13 years ago
Regarding all these issues concerning landlords and letting agents and regulation etc.
Ben has pointed out the perrenial problems he has with landlords and letting agents.
Clearly the govt has no appetite for regulation.
So as most housing issues are ultimately managed by local councils; would it not be an idea for their to be a council sponsored 'Good landlord and letting agent scheme'.
This could be operated by the council with a registration no applicable to each LA and LL.
Each LL and LA would provide ID details along with contact details and legal title copies of their properties.
ALL LL and LA using the scheme would advise of any change of address details to the local council.
All tenants would be able to check whether their LL was a member of the scheme to compare the details their prospective has given them.
This would even work for accidental landlords.
Anyone who chooses NOT to register for this voluntary fee free scheme would be viewed somewhat askance by relevant parties.
Surel all bona fide LA and LL would rush to volunteer their probity with the local council as it gives them a good reference as far as prospective tenants are concerned.
I appreciate this is just an idea and there would be issues militating against it; but isn't the principle a good idea in conjunction with local council.
2:57 AM, 11th December 2011, About 13 years ago
I am one of the incredibly dis-satisfied tenants Campbell have encountered this year, and I'm very disturbed by some comments on here.
It strikes me that some of the other tenants have done our group no favours in flipping out a bit and presenting their cases very poorly, with no legal grounding...however there are still some horror stories out there.
Whether Campbell Property operate within the law is a subject left for lawyers, however there are DEFINITELY some business practices I would like to raise to everyone's attention.
1) Campbell do all their cleaning with a contractor called Amicus Property Ltd. Not only is this company currently registered as dormant, it shares 2 directors (one of which is Victoria Campbell) with Campbell Property. Their charges are extortionate - 1 hours cleaning of a "dusty staircase" cost us over £30. Tiny marks, which didn't even come out in their photos, cost £40 to clean off one wall...etc, etc. How could such a company survive with such charges? Simple, they only serve Campbell...in fact they have no web/offline presence at all.
2) Campbell have broken, and have been proved to have broken the UKALA code of practice in several places, so rightly seem to have been suspended from this organisation. The sheer volume of complaints shows this is not a one off "dodgy tenant" trying to get away with something.
3) I have shown our "photo evidence" from Campbell to landlords, solicitors and other lettings agencies...all of which came back with exactly the same conclusion - that they were outrageous. I've had the law argued with me on their portal with regards to betterment (even when the case is completely clear cut)
4) Campbell demand all communication is done through their online "portal"...they demand queries are asked on there, and will not accept phone calls/letters on the matters. After querying a charge, getting no reply/a standard answer they simply close the query, stating no further query can be made on this charge and request payment. How is this a reasonable thing to do.
I could go on and on - if anyone would like photo evidence of any of our ridiculous charges I would be more than happy to oblige. I understand some tenants take the mick a bit and leave the house in a poor state, but for the vast majority of good, law abiding tenants like myself - who work very hard to return the house in exactly the same condition only to be left with charges of over £1,500, I am very glad Campbell have been shown up in the press for their poor business practices.
Ben Reeve-Lewis
7:27 AM, 11th December 2011, About 13 years ago
Yeah thats exactly what we are trying to do in my area Paul. Each district knows its rogue landlords and agents. If government wont regulate agents we have to find a way ourselves. The route I am aiming for is to provide a service that is so good, so beneficial for a lanldord to be a part of that people will be queueing up to join.
We will set high standards of membership but will offer far more than a normal agent could possibly do, because being the counicl we have onboard surveyors, Environmental Health officers, housing advisers, skilled mediators, tenancy sustainment officers, support workers and most important of all a hotline to housing benefit and staff that will actually work for landlords, not just enforce against them.
10:49 AM, 11th December 2011, About 13 years ago
As a writer for the PRS, paid to write blogs, articles and press releases for the sector, I find for every rogue landlord and agent there are another 20 who are honest and responsible.
One of my clients is an eviction specialist and we are just in the process of establishing a Landlord Awareness Initiative to tackle the problem with the rogues of the industry, citing best practice. They offer accredited status to letting agents free of charge, which agents can access cheaper evictions providing they follow simple rules, mainly that deposits are secured and that they understand the implications of the Housing Act and it's subsequent amendments.
You would be surprised at the number of landlords, especially those with one or two properties that have no idea of the legal responsibilities of being a landlord or letting agent. In most cases their negligence is one ignorance and not of design.
From my standpoint, I find people forget that this sector is indeed for PRIVATE Enterprise and as such are out to make profits just like any other business operating in the private sector and should not be confused with the social rented sector.
However with so much demand for housing, tenants are desperate to be housed and through lack of knowledge are entering into agreements without checking the landlord or agent first, making the emergence of the Rackman-esque landlords easy.
Without regulation, and lets face it a government that is playing 'catch up' in the housing sector, both tenants and landlords need educating and protecting.
From my view, I think the whole sector needs unifying.
11:45 AM, 11th December 2011, About 13 years ago
I hate that everyone is referring to a single "tenant" or "person" when the facebook group has 268 displeased ex tenants. Not one but hundreds I think this is evidence that Campbell leave people unhappy from a lot of their properties. Yes the properties were beautiful and well decorated, however problems took weeks to fix and unfair charges occur at the end of your tenancy. I know when I look back at my year with this agency I see it as a waste of money, lack of service and a general nuisance.