Breach of Duty of Care? – Help please

Dear Munro
On the face of it you should have a clear case against the agent, subject only to a possible duty to mitigate your loss by re-letting the property, which it appears has now happened.
You refer to "an email agreement from my letting agent giving permission" . Permission to do what? To remove items? Surely not to cause damage to the property? If the agents have authorised either of those things you will have a claim against them as well.

The fact that the agent has paid two months' rent to you looks like an admission of liability. Has your solicitor not advised you on this? I would have thought that a formal letter before action from your solicitors and the issue of proceedings is the next step.

When I had a problem with a national high street letting agents (charged me and the tenant for compiling an inventory but actually they never did an inventory!), I was advised to go through the agent's complaints procedure to its conclusion and then take the case to The Property Ombudsman. The PO ruled in my favour and I received compensation. So ask for Purple Bricks complaints procedure, comply with it and then go to the PO

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 27/04/2018 - 10:43
I thought Reichman & Dunn v Beveridge & Gauntlett [2006] ruled there is no requirement to mitigate loss for LLs?

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 27/04/2018 - 13:31
Hi Luke
Reichman & Dunn v Beveridge & Gauntlett relates to a landlord not having a duty to mitigate his loss. He can simply claim for all the rent as it falls due under the tenancy. That is not the case here. We can safely assume the agents had ostensible or implied authority to act on behalf of the landlord. Therefore the surrender was effective as between landlord and tenant. Munro's claim is against the agents for breach of their contract with him. I haven't had time to research the point which is why I referred to "possible duty to mitigate". My instinct is that there is a duty. It appears that Munro has re-let the property so the point is probably moot.

Seems to me you are in a similar position to this case:

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2016/02/15/claims-against-letting-agents-who-let-to-unsuitable-tenants/

You gave the brief to the agent. If they didn't follow it or went on to make decisions without consulting you and you suffered quantifiable losses as a result, follow this up quoting Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the successor to the Sale of Goods & Services Act referred to in the above Court case). Good luck!

Dear Munro

Your agent has a clear duty to act on your instructions. Failure to do so renders them liable for your losses. However, as pointed out by others the costs, of pursuing them may be prohibitive; in any event it looks like you have moved on and changed agents.

It sounds like the agents just weren't up to the job. I think that a decent agent may have tried to build a bridge between landlord and tenant. In my experience trying to keep a tenant who is determined to leave is not always a pleasant experience. However, handled well there is usually a deal to be done that a professional agent will broker. For example remarketing the property to let at the tenant's expense, so that the landlord does not bear any costs.

The life of a landlord is not always easy (or free from costs/losses) but a bit of communication goes a long way. It looks like Purple Bricks were not prepared to engage properly with the parties. I am not familiar with their letting service, but I do wonder if they have time served and experienced staff, maybe not.

Graham

The point that is moot (i.e. does not need to be debated) is whether you needed to mitigate your loss. Apologies for the lawyer speak😀
I suggest you produce a schedule of your losses and an explanation of why they are PB’s fault. Write to them saying that their payment to you is a clear admission of liability and that you are claiming for the scheduled items, giving credit for the payment received. Tell them you will issue a claim if payment is not made within 14 days.