Hi Steve, Specific wording below: "Giving not less than three months written notice, to the Agent, the Landlord may terminate the Agreement. If the Tenant's remain in occupation of the Property, the Agent shall charge fees appropriate to the Letting Service for the period of continuing occupation." Elsewhere in the contract the percentage for the management is defined, and it simply states that if the tenancy is extended or renewed (extended I assume meaning it moving to rolling period) then the fees will be due, but that is based on the assumption that we want the continuation of services. It's clear to me at least, via the contract, that the fee would be 9% ongoing, but I am not sure how they'd even know how much we would rent it for. We could say it was 1.00 GBP a month and toss then 9p for doing nothing. That is the crutch of the issue - it makes it impossible to stop them providing a service, because even terminating the service means they still get paid. That's surely the definition of unfair in this case. The question is, doe the working relate to a mid tenancy termination, e.g. if you cancel within the 12 month tenancy, as opposed to if you cancel anytime, disregarding the 12 tenancy as that is a contract between us and the tenant not us and the agent, whereas the contract with the agent has no fixed duration. Further clarification or in fact, a further point of confusion is that the quoted text above says "fees appropriate to the Letting Service". In the contract the Letting Service refers to standard services applicable to tenant finding as well as full management service. So you could argue that fees appropriate to the Lettings Service for the continuing occupation are irrelevant as none of those tasks (deposit management, inventory etc) are applicable anymore.

I've just spent some more time looking into the ruling @ http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-enforcement/consumer-enforcement-completed/foxtons/#.UslpwGRdWr8 Relating to "Renewal Commission Terms" is only managed to gain a ruling that the terms be transparent. "The ruling and order prohibit the use of sales commission and third party renewal commission in Foxton's letting contract, and require that where renewal commission is to be charged, it must be clearly brought to the consumer's attention - both in terms of the liability to pay it, the circumstances in which it will be payable, and the amount or rate at which it will be charged." Then it becomes a question of whether the lettings agent in this case did that. No montetary amount is mentioned, only that it would be the same as the ongoing commissions for managing the property. Vague enough?

Great - thanks Steve - that seems like very good precedent and in any case the terms of the contract are suitably vague, e.g. it doesn't specify what fees, just that the (variable, based on rent) service fees will still apply. If we terminate and ask agent to transfer deposit to us, it will mean we are being transparent in our intentions, so I hope that they do not make it difficult as a result.

The latest 12 month extension (we have had this tenant for 3 years) to the ASL expired in December, so it's now on a rolling basis. But that agreement is between us and the tenant, not us and RR.

Thanks, but that is the easy part - we are in contact with the tenant. The issue is that RR have a clause in the contract saying if the tenant remains in the property after we terminate our agreement with RR, they still get their monthly commission. If it is in the contract then they presumably feel it is enforceable. Of course we could do it anyway and lie about who lives there, but they have a signed agreement saying they can charge on an ongoing basis. It's a slightly odd paradox to terminate an agreement, where the fees associated with that agreement remain payable, e.g, what is the point of terminating until the tenant moves out, but that's where we are. I'm not concerned with RR evicting the tenant, I am saying that we do not want terminate the tenant as a way to get out of the ongoing fees.

HNY all. I'm renting out a flat that I own with with my wife, and due to being abroad at the time, we went for the managed service with Halifax. The first tenants were in, then Halifax were bought out by Reeds Rains. The first tenants left, and RR found replacements and we signed an updated agreement with RR. That was in 2010, and now we are back in the UK and because RR do not offer good value for their commission we want to cancel. However the agreement says that if we cancel (giving 3 months notice) but the tenant remains (which we want) they will continue to collect until that tenant moves out. This seems a little restrictive - do we have any options? They've been getting paid for the last 3 years, so have made their money. I would understand if the agreement was limited for the first 12 months, but it seems to be infinite. Essentially, they'll get paid forever until our tenant moves out. Serving notice on the tenant at the same time as RR is absolutely NOT an option. Thanks!

Thanks for your reply, Nailpost! I know what you are saying, but how can I be certain that the DCA has the right to enforce the debt? What could they supply me to satisfy me other than what they have already? Even though it was just the application form they sent, my issue here is not forcing them to prove it via a seemingly unregulated industry, but to correct the fact I never should have had the default in the first place. Now that the bank have corrected their mistake in reducing the number of defaults from two to one, I ultimately want to pay the debt. I would not feel comfortable getting off on a technicality, and you can bet your bottom dollar, the DCA will not respond with the desired result to a letter requesting they stop chasing and then remove the default - they'll only do that if baited with payment. Complaining seems to do nothing having listened to everyone else. I'd be a lot happier not paying the DCA any money (given that the OC won't get any of it now, and the DCA have not acted ethically), but I cannot see it working out like that

Okay, update time As it turns out, I did not write another letter to the bank, but eventually received a response to my last letter to the bank regarding my complaint. It was a bit of a "canned" response, and stepped over the actual point I was trying to make, but asked for a copy of my credit file with regards to the duplication. Anyhow, time has been tight and I never got round to replying, but I checked my file today and the bank default has been removed anyway which is a bit of a bonus. So this leaves the DCA default in place and everything how it should be, excluding the way the default was added in the first place of course. So now I think my only option is to write to the DCA offering a settlement conditional on the removal of the default due to the fact nobody has been able to supply me with anything whatsoever relating to the account other than the original application form for the account. Any advice? Would I need to do this via a solicitor? Thx

I'm not sure about that. I would have been happy with a termination notice or a default notice as either would have informed me what was happening and I could have acted to stop it. I would imagine they have to send you something and in this instance I don't think the terminology between default and terminology makes a difference - scone, scoan, tomato, tomheyto and all that. I am led to believe that the bank needs to ensure you are aware (and hence the leverage and reported success of the learnmoney link) and would need to produce it in court to enforce it. Otherwise I have that they need to prove they made due effort to contact you or inform you. But I cannot say anything with any fact, rather just things I have been made aware of from the people here.

Okay so I am going to write a letter to the bank. Can a bank claw a debt back like that? And get the DCA to remove the 2nd default?

Hi rory, many thanks for that - that letter was the first one I sent to the back right back at the beginning. It was the one passed on to the DCA who then denied ownership. Since finding this place my strategy changed somewhat and unfortunately unlike the example from that page I haven't settled and it si not a single default

Thanks Spiritgirl! Can a debt be clawed back like that, now that the DCA has paid a miserly sum for it?

I have recently had a response from a DCA regarding a CCA I sent some time ago, so I am now faced with a decision on how to proceed and I would really like to draw on the experience here. A quick background, The issue I have is with the placement of a default on an overdraft. I never got a notice of default (if I had I would have paid up). I fully intend to pay this debt subject to removal of the defaults from my credit file. After being refused a credit card, I checked my file and saw a default form the bank. It was marked satisfied - partial settlement (so a DCA bought it and the bank got a little cash). I CCA'ed under the 77/78 the bank, who passed my file to the DCA (or the parent company of this DCA) who wrote back saying they didn't know what the account was and it wasn't anything to do with them - double grrr. The first default was then joined by a whole new default for a DCA for the same debt - grrr. So I then wrote to the bank complaining about the cock-up, asking them to confirm assignation of debt, and provide me with a copy of the default notice, and I pointed out the duplicate default which was not allowed under the Data Protection Act. At the same time I CCA'ed the DCA under 77/78 pointing out the same things, asking for a copy of the default as I now believed it was them who owned the debt. 12 working days and 30 further days passed and then I had a letter through from the DCA in response to my letter enclosing documents as requested and asking me to call their specialist team (not that stupid). The document was my application form for the current account with just my signature on - not a statement of account which they are obliged to do, and obviously not a copy of the deed of assignation, or a copy of the default notice etc. So what now? Do I complain to all the relevant parties and/or do I write back and offer full settlement in return for the removal of the default as they clearly cannot produce anything at all. Problem is that even if the DCA agree the bank presumably still holds the data controllers rights for the first default - getting both to agree is going to be hard. I am assuming that they cannot enforce this without a court judgement now, but interest is still accruing. It's a few hundred quid in total, so its the presence of a monkey on my back rather than the size of a monkey thats annoying. Any advice appreciated on how to deal with this. It would be so much easier if it was just one party. Thanks OSL

I have been reading a bit around the site about section 10 and it's relation to bank accounts and overdrafts. Does this apply here? I CCA'ed under the 77/78 for a statement of account whoch I was under the impression they were obliged to provide regardless of the type of account. I am now closer to my goal of offering to pay the debt in return for removal of the default as there is no proof of them sending a default, but the problem is that the original default was added by the bank whilst the newer one was added by the DCA. Am I right in thinking that the DCA should have assumed control of the original default rather than assume a new one?

hi tomterm8, thanks for your reply - for some reason I missed the notification back then so I have done none of what you suggest. There has been some development in the form of a reply from the DCA, asking me to contact them by phone to discuss it (yeah, right...) but also enclosing a copy of the application I made when opening the account in the first place (note this was never asked for). It's a loose one page document (photocopy or similar) with just my signature, a few vague declarations etc, my rights under the DP act etc. No acknowledgment at all of the actual content of the previous letter (duplicate defaults etc etc), and therefore they have not provided the statement of account (that they are obliged to under the CCA, and a little irrelevant since it is way passed the timeframe alllowed, eg 12 day + a month), the copy of the default etc. Nothing at all from the bank. Thanks, OSL.