|
| |
|
Archive for the ‘Consumer rights’ Category
Friday, September 2nd, 2011
Letting industry launches a kitemark-style scheme to safeguard money handed over as a deposit or as rent
A kitemark-style scheme has been launched to reassure tenants and landlords worried about losing money handed over to a letting agent.
All agents displaying the SAFEagent mark will already belong to a client money protection scheme operated by the National Approved Letting Scheme, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the National Association of Estate Agents and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. These pay out in the event of the agent going bust or misappropriating money that has been handed over as a deposit or rent.
Membership is voluntary, but the government hopes promotion of the SAFEagent mark will encourage more to join.
The SAFEagent scheme, established by the letting industry but supported by the government, has already registered more than 1,200 offices. Tenants and landlords can locate agents in their area who are registered with the scheme at its website.
Nick Cooper, chair of the SAFEagent steering group and managing director of letting agent Northwood, said: “We have robust procedures in place to make sure those signing up to the scheme have client money protection cover. The cover is annually renewable, and we know when each firm’s renewal date is.”
Several lettings agents have collapsed in the past few years, he said, resulting the loss of clients’ money.
While the scheme will not stop disputes between tenants and landlords over the return of deposits, it should ensure anyone who uses a SAFEagent registered agent will not suffer loss as a result of their agent’s actions.
Cooper said: “We want every person who is looking to rent a property to ‘play it safe’ and be aware they can protect their money. The message is simple – be safe … choose a SAFEagent when you rent. Remember, your money may be at risk if you do not use an agent that is part of a client money protection scheme.”
The scheme is backed by organisations including housing charity Shelter, the NUS, and the Trading Standards Institute, and the Residential Landlords Association and the British Property Federation have allied themselves to the campaign.
Housing minister Grant Schapps said: “This is exactly the sort of measure the private rented sector needs – simple and sensible changes that are driven by industry and designed to deliver results.
“If there are any lettings agents who haven’t already signed up to SAFEagent, I would urge them to do so immediately so they are not left behind when consumers vote with their feet.”
Posted in Business, Buying to let, Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, guardian.co.uk, House News, Housing market, Money, News, Property, Renting property, UK news | Comments Closed
Friday, August 12th, 2011
We want to change estate agents but the cost of pulling out almost matches its sale fee
My Mum has Alzheimer’s and my family has a power of attorney. She has recently moved into care and we need to sell the house and invest the money to help pay for her care fees. The house has been on the market since early March with very few viewings and no offers. We have even followed the estate agent’s advice and dropped the price from £350,000 to £320,000 and now to £300,000.
We are considering changing estate agent, or even auctioning the property, but I have looked at the terms of the contract my brother signed and there does not seem to be any limiting period. If we sell to anyone else, with or without their help, we are fully liable for its 1% fee.
If we pull out without selling, for whatever reason, we are liable for a range of charges including £50 cancellation fee; £350 for the photographs and glossy brochure; £35 for each insertion in a newspaper (probably one a week); £20 per viewing (about five in total); £100 per internet listing (the contract suggests there could be 14 of them); and a £20 sale board. I estimate this could already be in excess of £2,000. If the situation continues it will be in their interest not to sell it.
Meanwhile, time ticks by, we are still not getting income from the value of the house, and mum’s care continues to cost almost £700 per week. AS, Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire
You are still worried so have asked for the agent to remain anonymous, which we respect. The agent confirmed that your contract is open-ended and that charges accrue indefinitely. However, you were mistaken that the £100 for the internet listing could be charged 14 times – you will only be charged once, removing £1,560 from your bill (including the VAT that would have been due) – a significant difference, leaving you with a bill for under £500. The agent said its fees are also low, at 1%, which is designed to balance out its hefty withdrawal fees.
You have also asked for a statement of costs so far, and have checked the price local papers charge to run house sale advertisements – finding that the estate agent’s fee is broadly in line.
We checked with a reputable estate agent, who agreed that there should not be separate internet listings, as the likes of Rightmove charge agents a single flat fee per month to list as many properties as they like, although more can be paid for premium listings. Most agents who do glossy details get them for a few hundred pounds.
The property ombudsman says that if sellers decide not to continue with the sale, they may have to pay some charges to cover costs already incurred – and this depends on the original contract between the seller and the estate agent. If anyone does dispute this amount, they can contact Citizens Advice. But if they have agreed to the terms of the contract, it is highly likely they will have to pay – unless those terms are grossly unfair, at which point they might win if the case was taken to the courts.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, The Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, House News, Letters, Money, Property, The Guardian | Comments Closed
Thursday, August 4th, 2011
Consumer group says 2.4m people have had a dispute with a builder or decorator in the past three years, as it urges consumers to take precautions
Householders should always have a written agreement in place with a builder or decorator in case a dispute breaks out, consumer rights organisation Which? has said.
The warning came after a survey showed that at least 2.5m people have had a dispute with a builder or decorator in the past three years, with a quarter forced to take formal action.
The consumer group found that the most common disagreement was over the quality of work, while other major complaints included traders not turning up when agreed, delays over completion, and properties being left untidy.
A quarter of people failed to receive a written quote from their builder or decorator before work began, and 4% were even asked to pay the full amount for the job upfront.
Trader disputes left two in five people out of pocket, with a quarter feeling they were owed at least £500, and one in 10 saying they had lost more than £1,000.
While most people talked to their builder or decorator to try to resolve the dispute, 15% had to seek the help of a professional body and 18% were forced to spend more money by taking the trader to court.
Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said: “With the cost of living climbing, many people are spending money on home improvements rather than moving house. Being left hundreds of pounds out of pocket after a bad experience with a builder can be a huge blow for families already feeling the pinch.
“To avoid problems you should always have a written agreement between you and the trader. And it’s important to do your homework – make sure you get several quotes before deciding who to use, choose a recommended trader and check they are a member of a professional body.”
How to avoid cowboy builders and decorators
1. Find a trader through word of mouth or personal recommendation from friends and family.
2. Try to obtain three detailed quotes before starting work, ask for references, and do not be afraid to verify them by asking to visit previous clients with the trader.
3. Get a signed contract that fully sets out the costs, the work to be completed and start/completion dates.
4. Do not pay all of the money up front – payment should be made on satisfactory completion of the job. Request a written schedule of when payments are to be made.
5. Do not go for the cheaper option of paying in cash rather than a properly invoiced job that may include VAT. Paying by credit card where possible offers extra protection if things go wrong.
Source: Which? Legal Service
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, guardian.co.uk, Home improvements, House News, Money, News, Property, UK news | Comments Closed
Friday, July 29th, 2011
Endsleigh asked to arrange my contents cover when I move and made it sound like something my letting agent insists on
My husband and I are moving house so, as usual, the letting agents did reference checks, and the company they used was Endsleigh. Since then, both my husband and I have been sent numerous emails, calls and texts from Endsleigh saying “your letting agents have asked us to contact you to sort out your contents insurance”.
They rang today and said “your letting agents [or it might have been landlord, I can't quite remember] have asked us to contact you to arrange your contents insurance for your move to Tooting”.
I said I was quite capable of arranging my own insurance, thanks. “But your agents have asked us to arrange this for you.” I repeated: “No thanks.” “We’ll go back to them and tell them that, then.”
I’m no expert, but this sounds like mis-selling to me as the implication is that I’m obliged to purchase contents insurance off Endsleigh.
In our contract there is no obligation to purchase contents insurance, let alone specifically from Endsleigh – but such was the implication in the calls/texts that I had to physically check our contract to make sure.
I’m fairly sure, were I not quite so savvy on marketing, I’d have just assumed it was part of my contract and let them flog it to me. It this standard practice? CB, Tooting, London
Endsleigh said it was happy to clarify why it approached you, reiterating that it works in partnership with your letting agent, Samuel Estates.
In the tenant reference form that you filled out for Endsleigh, there was a consent box asking whether Endsleigh should contact you regarding contents insurance. A spokesman said he had checked your form, and you had given permission for the firm to get in touch.
The spokesman continued: “I can see that CB was then sent a text message, giving advance notice that Endsleigh would be calling her – or giving her the option to ring us should she wish to set up contents insurance more urgently. We also sent her an email, explaining our partnership with her letting agent and the reason for getting in touch.
“CB subsequently had a telephone conversation with Endsleigh, in which she made clear that she was not interested in our contents insurance cover.
“I would like to assure her that all our telephone sales representatives are given scripts to follow, to ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines, and I am satisfied that our representative acted properly. As she did not express any interest in our product, it was flagged that we should not contact her again regarding it.”
You remain unhappy with this response because it does not address your concern, which is that Endsleigh implied your landlord/letting agent had asked it to arrange this insurance. This seemed to imply that taking it out was in some way mandatory.
We sought clarification from Endsleigh. A spokesman said the firm disagreed with CB and it was clear its service was merely an offer.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number.
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Letters, Money, Property, Renting property, The Guardian | Comments Closed
Friday, July 29th, 2011
Endsleigh asked to arrange my contents cover when I move and made it sound like something my letting agent insists on
My husband and I are moving house so, as usual, the letting agents did reference checks, and the company they used was Endsleigh. Since then, both my husband and I have been sent numerous emails, calls and texts from Endsleigh saying “your letting agents have asked us to contact you to sort out your contents insurance”.
They rang today and said “your letting agents [or it might have been landlord, I can't quite remember] have asked us to contact you to arrange your contents insurance for your move to Tooting”.
I said I was quite capable of arranging my own insurance, thanks. “But your agents have asked us to arrange this for you.” I repeated: “No thanks.” “We’ll go back to them and tell them that, then.”
I’m no expert, but this sounds like mis-selling to me as the implication is that I’m obliged to purchase contents insurance off Endsleigh.
In our contract there is no obligation to purchase contents insurance, let alone specifically from Endsleigh – but such was the implication in the calls/texts that I had to physically check our contract to make sure.
I’m fairly sure, were I not quite so savvy on marketing, I’d have just assumed it was part of my contract and let them flog it to me. It this standard practice? CB, Tooting, London
Endsleigh said it was happy to clarify why it approached you, reiterating that it works in partnership with your letting agent, Samuel Estates.
In the tenant reference form that you filled out for Endsleigh, there was a consent box asking whether Endsleigh should contact you regarding contents insurance. A spokesman said he had checked your form, and you had given permission for the firm to get in touch.
The spokesman continued: “I can see that CB was then sent a text message, giving advance notice that Endsleigh would be calling her – or giving her the option to ring us should she wish to set up contents insurance more urgently. We also sent her an email, explaining our partnership with her letting agent and the reason for getting in touch.
“CB subsequently had a telephone conversation with Endsleigh, in which she made clear that she was not interested in our contents insurance cover.
“I would like to assure her that all our telephone sales representatives are given scripts to follow, to ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines, and I am satisfied that our representative acted properly. As she did not express any interest in our product, it was flagged that we should not contact her again regarding it.”
You remain unhappy with this response because it does not address your concern, which is that Endsleigh implied your landlord/letting agent had asked it to arrange this insurance. This seemed to imply that taking it out was in some way mandatory.
We sought clarification from Endsleigh. A spokesman said the firm disagreed with CB and it was clear its service was merely an offer.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number.
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Letters, Money, Property, Renting property, The Guardian | Comments Closed
Tuesday, June 21st, 2011
Cuts to the Bank of England base rate were not matched by 95% of mortgage providers, says a Which? Money survey
Eighty six out of 91 mortgage lenders failed to match cuts to the Bank of England base rate, and one in five have raised their standard variable interest rates even though the base rate has remained static for more than two years.
A survey of 91 lenders by Which? Money shows that 95% of lenders failed to fully pass on cuts, while the base interest rate was falling, to their standard variable rate (SVR) mortgage customers. Cheltenham & Gloucester and Lloyds TSB Scotland are the only lenders of the four biggest banking groups to pass on the full cuts.
The consumer body also found that more than a fifth of lenders have increased their SVR since the base rate hit an all time low of 0.5% in March 2009. Cheltenham & Gloucester and Nationwide Building Society have both raised the standard rates for new customers, although existing customers still benefit from very low SVRs linked to the base rate.
Building societies – mutual organisations which are meant to act in the interests of their members – came out badly in the survey. Cathy Neal, senior researcher with Which? Money said that most of the offenders raising SVRs for existing customers were societies, including Norwich & Peterborough, which raised its SVR by 0.5% to 5.35% in February 2010 and Manchester Building Society which hiked its rate by 0.65% to 5.49% in June 2009.
KRBS, formerly known as Kent Reliance Building Society, has the highest SVR of those lenders included in the survey, standing at 6.08%, 5.58% or more than 12 times higher than the base rate. The five other lenders with the highest SVRs are all building societies: Newcastle, Nottingham and Shepshed all have an SVRs of 5.99%, while Darlington and Marsden have an SVR of 5.95%.
The high margins means that many borrowers have not benefitted from the record low base rate, and Which? warns that a rate increase could leave thousands of households in financial difficulty. A 1% increase to the base rate would add over £50 to the monthly repayments of someone with a £100,000 mortgage repaid over 20 years.
Figures published by the Financial Services Authority yesterday show that increasing numbers of borrowers are struggling with mortgage repayments. Home repossessions rose 17% to 9,613 in the first three months of the year, the first rise in more than a year.
Which? chief executive Peter Vicary-Smith, says: “Millions of people are on variable rate mortgage deals and for many a rate hike could mean they’re facing real financial difficulties. Banks have enjoyed increased margins on mortgages for the last few years and when the base rate rises again, few lenders will be able to justify passing the full amount onto their SVR customers.”
The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), the trade body for banks and building societies, said the base rate should not be used as a proxy for the cost to lenders of raising funding. Since 2008, lenders had been operating in market conditions that have changed significantly, facing a shortage of funds, new requirements to hold more capital and liquidity, and increased pressure to help struggling borrowers.
Michael Coogan, CML director general, said: “Lending rates are fundamentally driven by the cost of funds, not the base rate, although the two were more closely correlated before 2008. But this apparent historical relationship has been blown apart by the move to an unprecedented low base rate since March 2009. For borrowers anticipating difficulty the message remains unchanged. They should speak to their lender as soon as possible if they are struggling to meet their repayments, and lenders are committed to helping them wherever they can do so.”
Posted in Banks and building societies, Business, Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, House News, Interest rates, Money, Mortgage rates, Mortgages, News, Property, The Guardian, UK news | Comments Closed
Thursday, June 16th, 2011
Neighbour-related problems affect more than 10m Britons, according to Which? – with noise topping its list of complaints
I recently fell out with my neighbour because he refused to unblock a hole in our fence, trapping a fox cub in my garden and separating him from the rest of his family. After a fairly frank exchange of views, the hole was unblocked and cub reunited.
A friend who lives in a flat across the road was driven mad by her downstairs neighbour slamming the front door as he went to work every morning at the crack of dawn. She eventually moved out. At the bottom of the road about four sets of neighbours are refusing to talk to one other because of a dispute concerning planning permission for an extension.
And about three doors up, a neighbour was upset to find her neighbours’ garden designers had ripped down the adjoining fence between their gardens (her fence as it turned out) without so much as a by-your-leave. After failing to apologise and covering the previously lush garden with concrete, the fence-demolishers moved out of the street.
My street may sound like Europe prior to the start of the first world war, but we are not unusual, apparently. According to research by Which?, at least 5 million people are annoyed with their neighbour, and more than 10 million have had a neighbour-related problem in the past year.
Which? found that noise tops the list of neighbour complaints, with about three in five people annoyed by loud voices or arguments, blaring music and TVs. A quarter of those affected are irritated by door slamming, a similar percentage have been disturbed by their neighbours’ noisy pets (that could be me – I have a cat that can miaow for Britain), and one in five by regular parties. Then there is the 5% who can hear their neighbours having sex. Eew!
Which? goes on to say that noisy neighbours disturb four in 10 people’s sleep, while others complain that the noise makes them irritable, angry or stressed. One in five sufferers have seen their work or health affected. To resolve these problems, one third of those questioned for the survey said they spoke calmly to their neighbours about the issue, 20% contacted their local authority, while 17% of people were forced to call the police.
Which? suggests that if you have a problem neighbour, you should: keep a diary of when noise or an incident occurs, and how long it lasts; speak calmly to your neighbour about the problem to see if they will stop doing it; if you live in a flat and own the leasehold, contact the freeholder who may be able to take action against the other leaseholder, or if there is no change you can contact your local authority’s environmental health department who will investigate the issue and can prosecute where necessary. If all else fails, consider legal proceedings, but Which? warns these are costly and should only be considered after taking legal advice.
A quarter of people who are frustrated with their neighbours have made no attempts to rectify the problem, and 10% retaliated by becoming nuisance neighbours themselves.
Have you had arguments with your neighbours? If so, what was the cause and did you find a good solution to the problem?
Posted in Blogposts, Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, guardian.co.uk, House News, Money, Property | Comments Closed
Monday, May 9th, 2011
Failing to use details from Abbey National’s files cost more than £300 in higher premiums
My home insurance with Abbey National was transferred to Santander on the takeover in 2004. Noticing inaccuracies in the description of my property in the most recent renewal notice, I phoned Santander and the premium was reduced by about a third. I discovered Santander had not used Abbey’s correct data on my home but based premiums on its own default data. Santander has refused to compensate me for the overcharged premiums. CMcA, London
I had already asked Santander to comment on your problem when I learned that the Financial Ombudsman was also looking at your complaint. Santander confirmed it had taken a corporate decision to use default details for all Abbey house insurance policies rather than the information on Abbey’s files. At the time customers were asked to report any wrong information which you didn’t do until this year. Through the Financial Ombudsman Scheme, Santander has sent you £3,471 to refund the unnecessarily higher premiums you have paid.
You can email Margaret Dibben at your.problems@observer.co.uk or write to Margaret Dibben, Your Problems, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU and include a telephone number. Do not enclose SAEs or original documents. The newspaper accepts no legal responsibility for advice.
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, Home insurance, House News, Letters, Money, Property, The Observer | Comments Closed
Saturday, April 23rd, 2011
The owner of the upstairs flat assured me she had fixed a leak but it keeps happening
When I visited my flat immediately after buying it in April 2008 I noticed an entire wall in the back room was flooded with water. The room above is a bathroom.
I contacted the upstairs neighbour who rents the property. He said he had told the owner about the leaks a year earlier and had solved the problem by not using the shower, although he poured buckets of water down the wastepipe. The owner then assured me she had fixed the leaks but they happened again. My ceiling has had to be removed now for the fourth time and I asked her for compensation. She contacted Stackhouse Poland Insurance, the broker for the property owners’ insurance policy, and a loss adjuster viewed her flat.
I was away from London for six months through work but since January have repeatedly asked for the leak to be fixed. I heard that the owner is ill so I asked the tenant to deal with it but he puts the phone down on me. MS, London
Stackhouse Poland tells me it is aware of this problem but is limited in what it can do. It recently sent a registered letter to the owner which, as she is so unwell, was picked up by her mother. Immediately her mother saw the problem she took responsibility for getting the plumbing repaired. But it still required you and the tenant to co-operate as the plumber needed access to both your flats. I suggested you made a fresh start by approaching him in a calm and co-operative way and this has worked. The owner’s mother has been true to her word and the leaks are now fixed.
You can email Margaret Dibben at your.problems@observer.co.uk or write to Margaret Dibben, Your Problems, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU and include a telephone number. Do not enclose SAEs or original documents. The newspaper accepts no legal responsibility for advice.
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, House News, Letters, Money, Property, The Observer | Comments Closed
Friday, April 8th, 2011
I gave notice on my rental property early. Now the letting agent says I should pay running costs until new tenant moves in
I moved out of a rental property – where I had signed a 12-month contract – eight months early, with two months’ notice. The keys were handed in and bills paid up until the date I moved , 10 January.
I obtained meter readings and the final bills were made from these figures. I have letters from the different energy providers – TV licence, council tax etc – that my balance is now zero on each account.
However, I have just received a bill for £190 for five weeks’ electricity usage from when I was no longer living at the property, or had the keys.
The letting agency, Philip James (PJ), wants me to sign a form that says I was responsible for the property until a new tenant had moved in, or my year contract had come to an end. They also claim that I need to pay any running costs involved in this period. I thought that, if the property was vacant, there shouldn’t be running costs.
They had a £950 deposit, from which they have taken £800 to cover the rent for the month I had left early and they had not managed to find a tenant. I have also paid them a £450 re-advertising fee before I moved out. VB, Manchester
You have certainly paid a lot to exit this agreement, but PJ’s contract does, unfortunately for you, comply with the Association of Letting Agents’ guidelines which state: “Either party might request of the other that a formal ‘surrender’ of the tenancy be allowed. It would then be up to the parties to agree the terms and conditions of such a surrender. This might include some financial compensation for inconvenience or costs incurred.”
PJ made you responsible for everything (rent, utilities etc) until it could find a new tenant. As unfair as it may be, you are lucky it found one within the best part of a month – or you could have been liable for more.
The contract you signed stated that, should you wish to vacate the property before the agreed termination date, you would be responsible for “the rent and all other obligations” until a new tenant could be found, or the original 12-month period had ceased.
The contract states that you would be responsible for the landlord’s letting agent’s fees, and PJ said you also signed a separate letter confirming this when you paid the re-marketing fee.
“Despite the customer’s assumption, the tenancy did not end when she handed the keys back to us,” a spokeswoman said.
With that in mind, she said you were liable for utility charges up to, and including, 8 February 2011.
The lesson here is, that if you think your circumstances might change, insist on a six-month contract, not a 12-month one.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, House News, Letters, Money, Property, Renting property, The Guardian | Comments Closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
