Home » News » Rental market » Tribunal orders agent to repay ‘holding deposit’
Regulation & Law

Tribunal orders agent to repay ‘holding deposit’

RSB Estate Agents must pay a £500 deposit back to tenant Andrea Aakanksha after trying to add extra charges.

David Callaghan

hm courts employment conveyancing

Letting agent RSB has been ordered to repay a ‘holding deposit’ of £500 to a tenant who agreed to take a room before being told about ‘extra charges’.

Andrea Aakanksha took up a room in a flat in Shepherd’s Bush, west London, after seeing it advertised on Spareroom.co.uk, and a viewing.

The advert said: “All bills included — Gas, TV licence, electricity, wifi, water and council tax.”

Charges added
Goldhawk Road - Shepherd's Bush

Picture: Google Street View

But after she accepted the room in Goldhawk Road (pictured), letting agency RSB Estate Agents then added a DPS admin charge of £85, a reference fee of £85 and an energy bill charge of £86.66.

Aakanksha said the additional charges pushed the room rent from the agreed £850 per month (weekly £200) to £936, which pushed it outside of her budget.

Teerat Singh from the agents said the ‘holding deposit’ was not repayable as Aakanksha had pulled out on the day she was due to move in last year.

Prohibited payment

The Property Tribunal decided the deposit had to be repaid, according to the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

“In our judgement, the holding deposit is repayable. There are a number of legal routes to reaching this result, but they all result in the same conclusion,” said Judge Adrian Jack.

The holding deposit was paid on one basis, namely that there would be no energy charge.”

“It is common ground that the agents demanded a holding deposit of £500. This was more than one week’s rent. Accordingly, they demanded a “prohibited payment”. This is in breach of Section 2 of the Act.

“The holding deposit was paid on one basis, namely that there would be no energy charge (save for a possible £20 charge for excess usage) and no other charges; yet the landlord and the agents sought an agreement for more money.

“This is directly contrary to the terms of the Spareroom advertisement”, he said.

Read the full judgement here

More from the Property Tribunal

January 10, 2024

What's your opinion?

Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.