10 October 2008

RE: 2 Frenches Court, Frenches Rd, Redhill, Surrey.

Dear Ms Prior

After purchase of the above property through yourselves we subsequently offered your services as a letting Agent.

We have since realized your ‘Duty of Care’ contract has been found to be more than lacking, including the supply of a viable tenant. Indeed, we have subsequently discovered that false information was used by you to accept a Mr Clark as a credible tenant.

Your negligence has incurred considerable time and money on our part.

At this point please provide forthwith your comments on how the situation can be resolved.

We also require, immediately, details of the sum of rent outstanding.

Please be assured an unsatisfactory explanation will not be accepted favourably.

Yours Sincerely,

Not a happy chappy

********************************************************************************************************: 

********************************************************************************************************

21 October 2008

Dear Ms Prior

Re: 2 Frenches Court, Frenches Rd, Redhill, Surrey

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 13 October 2008; the contents of which we feel are both contradictory and unacceptable.  

We have detailed below the points in question.

“Mr. Clark approached us in January looking to rent another property. I have looked at the Application form filled in by him. We obtained a referencing report from” Company Lettors Security Ltd”.  They took some time obtaining a work reference for him, and managed to speak to a character reference. The address given by the tenant at that time was his brothers address”.

• Was there any reason why they took their time, meaning was there a problem obtaining the reference?
• Why did they only speak to the character reference?
• We are given to understand only a verbal reference was given over a mobile phone. This number could easily have been Mr. Clark’s own.  The address given was his “brother’s”. We believe you have no written proof of this address.

 

“Whilst I note that the date of birth may have been different the referencing Co would have checked once they were given the different date of birth, and they were satisfied that there was nothing outstanding against this applicant”

• By your own admission the date of birth was incorrect. Why did this not pull up a “red flag”?

We know by employing certain services ourselves the correct D.O.B and address would have led you to discover there is a Charge on his own property in Coulsdon, the address wesupplied.  Mr. Clark would therefore not have been approved as a viable tenant.

“Finally in March he believed he was ready to move, and the staff in Redhill checked his references, to be extra sure if his work and the address given they also took, and we still hold on file, copies of his pay roll statements and also proof that he was living at his brother’s address.”

• Can you make available to us this proof that he was living at his brothers address.

“His references were again checked and updated, with another call to his employers to ensure he was still working for them. We again checked his work I.D. (as a Corgi Registered Engineer, with a photo card, we believe this to be acceptable) and as stated we checked his work and address details)”

• On or after 23.08.08 Alex contacted his employer Morrissons.  Their Pay Roll Officer confirmed Mr. Clark does work for them but the Pay Roll No supplied by Choices vetting file was incorrect, which implies you had false information on your file up until this time.
• Although you have a copy of his work I.D., again, this does not provide a home address.

“I therefore find that there were no errors in the referencing process, that both Choices and the Referencing agent acted properly and with due care in vetting this tenant.”

Sorry, but we refuse to accept this.

“However I confirm that he failed to make payment of rent and we immediately started chasing him for payment”.

• This was not the case.  We received a letter from yourselves dated 29 .07.08 informing us you had not received rent due 16.07.08.  We understand your Liaison Officer was on holiday and the matter was not acted on immediately after the four days grace period.

“We cannot be held liable for the actions or non actions of the tenant in this matter”.  

• We feel strongly that it is rather through your actions and non actions we now find ourselves in this situation.

With regards to all outstanding rent due to us (including the void period), we would be grateful for information (re timescale) on your pursuance of Mr. Clark and the results of your endeavours so far.  Please be advised that the locks have not been changed so we therefore feel he is still liable for the full 6 months.

For the second time, we immediately request a breakdown, in figures, the total balance as it stands with both Mr. Clark and yourselves.

 We believe this whole unfortunate saga began when you failed to ensure all reference details were authentic. We believe you had no written proof of address, Utility Bill, Passport, Driving Licence or recent Bank details.
We also believe references were taken verbally only.  False D.O.B. and Payroll Number were provided.

We cannot impress on you enough how much distress and expense this is causing.  Please ensure a prompt reply.

Yours sincerely,

Not a happy chappy

*********************************************************************************************************

********************************************************************************************************

30 November 2008

FAO: Stephanie Prior
Choices
99 Brighton Road,
Redhill,
Surrey.
RH1 6PS

RE: 2 Frenches Court, Frenches Rd, Redhill, Surrey.

Dear Ms Prior

Please be advised we have not yet received a reply to our letter dated 21 October 2008, a copy of which is enclosed.

On Friday 21 November 2008 we phoned in order to speak to you but were informed you were not in the office until the afternoon  and that our phone call would definitely be brought to your attention on your return. We were also informed if you had not received the letter, either you or your office would, again, return our call. No phone call was received so we assumed you had the letter in your possession.

A week later, still no contact!

We have been more than patient in allowing you four weeks to reply to our letter. No effort on your part has been made to contact us with a view to resolving the situation amicably.

We therefore feel we have no alternative but seek advice from the Ombudsman if we do not hear from you within the next ten days.

Yours Sincerely

not a happy chappy

********************************************************************************************************* 

********************************************************************************************************

5 January 2009

FAO: Stephanie Prior
Choices
99 Brighton Road,
Redhill,
Surrey.
RH1 6PS

RE: 2 Frenches Court, Frenches Rd, Redhill, Surrey.

Dear Ms Prior

Further to your letter dated 31st December 2008, in response to our letter dated 30th November 2008.

You enclosed a copy of letter dated 24 November in which you duly noted we did not appear to have received. Please be advised where there were no attachments enclosed I.e. a copy of the rent statement or copies of the paperwork from the file of evidence you obtained on Mr Clark as stipulated.
Please send immediately.

We are at a loss to understand why it took 4 weeks for you to realize we had not received this letter. Why is it evident a month later and not at the time. Clearly the matter was not given the attention it deserves.

Yours Sincerely,

Not a happy chappy

********************************************************************************************************* 

*********************************************************************************************************

I sent the letter below to Alex at the Redhill branch hoping to resolve matters. Before this site came live.

Ref : Frenches Court, Frenches Rd, Redhill, Surrey.

Dear Alex,

I am acting on behalf of Ray Macky. A while ago he had used your services for the above property and it is quite clear that you failed him miserably. After perusing all the associated documents, I have come to this conclusion - Your vetting scheme is beyond beggars belief!

To keep things simple at this stage, I am giving you a chance to correct the situation with my client. And before you say, ' I done my job properly.' Think again! If you use third parties to sort out the proceeds of vetting and the outcome of a rental agreement, you are fully responsible!

On the 18/09/09 I spoke to you over the phone regarding a flat, and led you to think I was interested in letting it. If you remember I told you I had problems with the electrician who had been employed by the builder, but he had not done his job properly. I then went onto say, that I was not sure who I should make a claim from .

Quote from yourself - ' If the builder employed the electrician, then you should claim of the builder, as he is fully responsible for the work.'

It's not rocket science, we all with half a brain know, what you said was right! Now tell me how is it your company is exempt from such going ons?

Before I go, think, where is this leading to?

Mr Macky would like to resolve this matter amicably. but his back is up against the wall, you know, you put him there! Therefore, as a last resort, if I'm needed the following will happen -

www.choices-lettings.co.uk in association with www.ladcrooks.com

Please feel free to check the link pages at  www.ladcrooks.com Take your time, no rush.

Yours regrettably

A man that can shout. And loud at that.