JANE VENNiNG KERRY LONDON


Clients who appoint their own solicitors can be liable to pay their costs as it is unlikely insurers will pick up these costs.


DEFENDiNG THE CLAiM In most cases, if insurers feel it is necessary for solicitors to deal with a claim on their behalf they will want their own solicitors to be appointed as they have specially agreed rates for them. These firms will be PI claim specialists and ultimately the cost of using them will be lower; which benefits the Insured in the long run too, as any defence costs claimed under the policy should be less. Jane Venning says. “Clients who appoint their own solicitors can be liable to pay their costs as it is unlikely that Insurers will pick up these costs.” But Bryn Cole adds, “It has been


known, in certain circumstances, where it has made commercial sense to do so, for the Insurers to agree to the use of an insured’s own solicitor, however the norm is to utilise insurers own claims team/ legal panel.”


THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN’S CASEBOOK


The TPO Code of Practice requires agents to put landlords and tenants liabilities in writing.’


In this cases Christopher Hamer, The Property Ombudsman made an award against a letting agent. The cost to the agent was £600, which would have been covered by most PI arrangements: “The complaint concerns


the agent’s handling of the the Complainant (applicant) holding deposit. It was not disputed that they paid the holding deposit in the evening of the 10 November 2009 after office hours. The Complainants stated that they had never received any documentation from the agent in relation to their application to rent the property. The agent stated that they informed the Complainants that the holding deposit was non refundable but did not say when they advised them of


this. Thirty six hours after the Complainants paid the holding deposit they informed the agent that they did not want to continue with their application as they were separating. From the information provided it appeared that the first time the Complainants were aware that the holding deposit was non-refundable was when they decided to withdraw from renting the property. The TPO Code of Practice makes it clear that the agent must put in writing any circumstances in which the Complainants would have any potential financial liability to them or the landlord for fees or charges should they withdrew their application. In my view the agent had an obligation to inform the


Complainants in writing at the time they took the holding deposit that this sum was not refundable; it is not sufficient for them to verbally advise them of this fact either before or as it appears in this case, after they wanted to withdraw. In my view the agent acted unfairly towards the Complainants and therefore I supported this element of the complaint. I also supported the complaint that the agent acted unfairly towards the Complainants when they refused to communicate with them after they requested the return of the holding deposit until the Complainants threatened the agent with legal action. I made an award of £600


which included the holding deposit.”


HOMELET “


An agent was sued by a tenant for £25,000 after the tenant injured themselves slipping on standing water following a water leak. They alleged the agent was negligent in not fixing the leak. We defended the agent and saved them thousands of pounds of legal costs as well as the £25,000 damages.”


KERRY LONDON


“A tenant defaulted on rent and left the property having caused damage. The landlord sued the agent claiming £9,000. Insurers agreed that the agent should try to settle the matter and the landlord accepted an offer of £1,000. The relatively low cost to Insurers should avoid a substantial increase in their PI premium at renewal.”


FCC PARAGON


“A client purchased a lettings business and kept the owner onboard to run the accounts until he retired. The owner did indeed retire but not before cleaning out the client account. Our policy covered this theft by the employee and the quality of communication speedy claims service and the ultimately saved his business.”


LEASEGUARD


“If tenants aren’t paying their rent and it is costing the landlord a considerable sum to evict them, he may claim against the agent for the evictions costs and loss of rental income, if, for example, they didn’t carry out full tenant referencing checks although this was part of their written agreement.”


www.kerrylondon.co.uk www.endsleigh.co.uk www.homelet.co.uk www.leaseguard.co.uk www.letsure.co.uk www.paragonadvance.com www.rentguard.co.uk


Do you have any comment to share? www.propertydrum.com/articles/PI


58 DECEMBER 2010 PROPERTYdrum


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68