Posts and comments made on this site are not the opinions of the owner Worst Property Agents | worstpropertyagents.co.uk

Anthony Sharpe

August 5, 2011 15:45 by Admin

In my opinion you should think twice before renting any premises from Anthony Sharpe in Leeds

If you have had any problems with Anthony Sharpe in Leeds please use the comments form below.

  1. Were there regular inventory inspections from Anthony Sharpe?
  2. Did Anthony Sharpe wait until you had vacated the premises before listing out repairs?
  3. Did Anthony Sharpe demand money for the repairs without giving you the opportunity to do the repairs?
  4. Did Anthony Sharpe send bailiffs with/without notice if you were a few weeks late with the rent?

The first problem we encountered with Anthony Sharpe was when we rented premises on Harrogate Road there was a damp wall to the rear of the building which he promised to have repaired. We expected the builders to arrive in the first month but nothing, it was months before they arrived and when they did we lost use of the rear office for a month. This was not the only issue, when the builders started packing their tools away, I asked if they were going to paint the wall that had been repaired they said, “ Mr Sharpe will sort this out”. 6 years later the wall is exactly as the builders left it and we ended up using the rear office as a storage room.

The next problem... I am sitting in at my desk with a client and there is a knock on the front door, one of my colleagues opened the door and was confronted with a bailiff demanding payment of the rent. The rent was less than 10 days overdue and Anthony Sharpe instructed bailiffs without any notification at all. I explained the situation to my client and had to apologise and call an end to my meeting and called Anthony Sharpe to explain, he replied in a patronising manner that he had every right to demand any overdue bills. The bailiff had to list all the items in the office as security against the cheque I wrote him.

This threat of the bailiff hung over us for the remainder of our tenancy

Earlier this year in the last 6 months of the tenancy we had water leaking into the toilet, on the 24/02/2011 we sent an email to Anthony Sharpe explaining the situation, there was no reply. We sent a second email on the 1/03/2011 and now we had mushrooms growing from under the carpet, again no reply. Another email from us on the 9/03/2011 and still no reply and the mushrooms were growing bigger. At this stage the employees were complaining of the smell and we had to move the furniture away from the area and close the rear of the building and the toilet area was not usable. We sent anther email on the 14/03/2011.

Finally on the 16/03/2011 we received a reply:

“I refer to your email of the 14th March and apologise for the slight delay in reverting to you.  Unfortunately the builder was due to call as indicated but he did hurt his back and at the moment is laid up.  Hopefully he will be back at work during the course of the next few days and you are on the list!”

So time passes, we don’t have a toilet and have to go to the coffee shop across the road, we email Anthony Sharpe again on the 19/04/2011 – this is almost 2 months later and the mushrooms are now about 5 inches of the floor and the smell is affecting our health.

We now get this reply:

“Spoken to the builder again, he will call in later this afternoon.
 
Any news on your rent?
 
Anthony”

So no apology, just can we have the money!!!

By this time we have decided enough is enough and started to look for other premises and once when we found another office we informed Anthony Sharpe on the 3/5/2011 on the 5/5/2011 we were informed that bailiffs had been instructed again.

The next issue started when a To Let board was about to be erected on the building so that a new tenant could be found, we still had 6 weeks before the end of our lease. The man who was to put up the board had a drawing of where the board was to be placed. When we moved into the premises the To Let board had been on the first floor of the building above the ground floor window and signage.

The drawing showed the as the place where the board was to be put but this had been crossed out and was now positioned on our signage. We told the man that there was no reason for the re-positioning as the board clearly stated that it was a “Ground Floor Unit To Let” and that we would not allow the sign to be place upon our sign whilst we were trading on the premises and he left with the sign.

So we received an email from  Anthony Sharpe:

“Please refer to attached extract of lease”

“(19) for the period of six (6) months immediately preceding the determination of this lease to permit a notice board to be exhibited on some reasonable and conspicuous part of the premises intimating that the same are to be let or sold and during such period of six (6) months to permit an inspection at any reasonable time of day by or on behalf of any person desirous of becoming a tenant or purchaser of the premises upon an appointment being made for the purpose”

So we responded:

“Anthony,

I have no problem with the sign you want put up but you cannot cover my sign or window to do so.

You can place it above the sign area or at the side of the window near the drain pipe which will give you plenty of exposure.

If you insist on placing it on the our sign or window then we would welcome a 50% reduction in rent for the final quarter.”

His reply:

“I am in receipt of your email regarding the sign and would further comment as follows.  Firstly you had no authority or permission to prevent the sign being put when the erectors called on Monday.  The sign will be put in the most convenient position for fixing and to assist the re-letting of the property, particularly when relatively short notice has been given regarding you vacating.  Please be assured that under no circumstances will any form of reduction be considered if the board does not conform with your request or ideas.  As at today’s date I am sure you are fully aware the quarter’s rent which was due on the 25th March has yet to be received and the request for a reduction in the rent is not only out of order but completely without any justification whatsoever.
 
At this stage I would respectfully suggest that you refer to the terms of your lease as you have an obligation to yield up the premises at the end of the term to ensure that it is left in a tenantable condition which includes redecorating of the interior.  If you have any doubt at this stage as to what your obligations are then I would strongly recommend you take legal advice as soon as possible.
 
Anthony Sharpe”

Our response:

“Anthony,

Please refer to the clause of the lease you sent me, we find it unreasonable for any sign to be erected that obscures our sign and window.”

Now we have another visit from the To Let board man and again we turn him away

We send another email:

“Anthony,

I have spoken to your man with the To Let sign and again explained as per my previous email, if the sign is put up, I will have it removed.

He also showed me a mock-up of how the sign would look and previously it has been placed above the window and refers to the Ground Floor Unit. I remember that that was where it was placed before we moved in, on the mock-up you have crossed out this positioned and indicated that it should be placed over our sign.

At this point I have to believe that you would not be so petty as to intentionally cause us problems in the final months at these premises.

Please do what you normally do and place the To Let sign where it has normally been placed with reference to the Ground Floor Unit”

Anthony’s reply:

“I cannot believe we are having this exchange of correspondence particularly bearing in mind that you have a little over a month left in occupancy.  The board will go up where it is best suited as the previous position is not now considered to be suitable particularly bearing in mind that the offices above are occupied.
 
Be under no illusions whatsoever that if you even contemplate touching the board which is not your property then not will you be responsible for costs incurred but also to any damage that is caused for a replacement.
 
At this stage you are preventing me from doing my job on behalf of the landlord which I find totally unacceptable.  Copies of the correspondence that has been exchanged is now being on to the landlords solicitors for their information and action if necessary.
 
Anthony Sharpe”

Our response:

“Anthony,

Again, I draw your attention to the clause you sent me... I find it unreasonable for you to obscure our sign and window as we have plans to announce that we are moving to new premises and will be using that space to do so..

Again, when we first moved in this unit, the offices above were occupied and the sign was placed above the window. The sign does identify which unit is being advertised and clearly states Ground Floor Unit so it cannot be mistaken for the first floor offices. We have over a hundred estate/letting agents in the UK on our books and I deal with To Let/For Sale boards on a regular basis. Placing the board in its original position will not affect you carrying out your job to the landlord.

Again, I reiterate, we will not allow the sign and the window to be obscured whilst we occupy the ground floor unit.”

I know, I know.... bear with me.... Anthony’s reply

“Having spoken to the landlords solicitors I would draw your attention to the following clause:-
 
“for the period of six (6) months immediately preceding the determination of this Lease to permit a notice board to be exhibited on some reasonable and conspicuous part of the Premises intimating that the same are to be let or sold…”.
 
THE BOARD IS GOING UP AND IF ANY ATTEMPT IS MADE TO REMOVE OR DISLODGE IT THEN I WILL ISSUE IMMEDIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOU FOR WHAT IS A MOST RIDICULOUS SITUATION PARTICULARLY BEARING IN MIND THAT IN FOUR WEEKS TIME YOU ARE VACATING.L
 
I cannot believe how petty you are being in this situation and also how unnecessary this correspondence is.
 
Anthony Sharpe”

Our response:

“Anthony,

“for the period of six (6) months immediately preceding the determination of this Lease to permit a notice board to be exhibited on some reasonable and conspicuous part of the Premises intimating that the same are to be let or sold…”.

I suggest you go back to the solicitors and ask them what reasonable means, you are being unreasonable by moving the sign from where it is usually situated and placing it on my sign – you can move it to that position after the 23rd June if you wish but not before.

I WILL REMOVE THE SIGN IF IT IS PLACED ON OUR SIGN OR WINDOW!!!!!!”

...wait for it – here comes the solicitors:

“Dear Sir

We have been instructed by your Landlords to reply to the e-mail below sent to our client’s agents Anthony Sharpe & Co.

The placing of the notice board will be in a reasonable position, and will not affect your sign or window. The board is not your property and you have no right whatsoever to remove it. You will be held responsible for any damage or injury caused by your removal of such sign.

Our clients have already lost a week in placing an appropriate notice board. Our clients will not hesitate to seek damages against you as a result of any further delay.

We would respectfully suggest that you consult your own Solicitor.

Yours faithfully
John Howe & Co”

So we collate all the emails exchanged and send them to the solicitor with:

“John,

Thank you for your email, I have attached additional emails that have been going back and forth between Anthony and myself so that you can follow the events.

I repeat what I have said previously that I have no objection to the board being put up on 86a Harrogate Road. I do however object to the placement of the board on my sign or window.

In the past the board has been placed above the window in a prominent position visible for many metres in both directions, in fact the nails of the previous boards are still embedded in the wall. Furthermore the sign clearly states the it is a Ground Floor Unit so there should be no confusion as to which part of the property is to be let.

I have attached a photograph with a red cross marking the position the board is usually placed and the blue cross as to where Anthony Sharpe would like to place it.

I reiterate that I will remove any board that I feel is unreasonably placed and obscures any part of our sign and window. I will also look for compensation for any inconvenience placed upon me and my company at a rate of £150 per billable hour plus 3rd party costs and interest on any invoices raised at 5% per day above the base interest rate.”

And hey presto the sign goes up where it should have in the first place.

So you would think we pay the Rent and move out and we are finished with Anthony Sharpe... Anthony sent me an email to request a viewing for a potential tenant, when he arrives we a have moved most of the contents to the new office and I ask him if there is anything specific he wants doing to the premises before we drop off the keys. He says that all we had to do was paint the green and red walls white. So we painted the walls white and dropped the keys through his letterbox.

On the 4/07/2011 we received a solicitors letter claiming £3,000 for repairs to the property. No mention of a list of items that needed repair or an offer for us to go in to put things right just a demand.


Leedsstudenthomes.com

February 12, 2011 12:13 by Admin

There is a lot about leedsstudenthomes.com on the following links;

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2217305932&v=wall

http://www.lettingexpert.com/forums/Blah.pl?b-RLLLA/m-1223405590/

Students' landlord in clash over deposits

A STUDENT landlord is to face a tribunal after almost 50 complaints from tenants in Leeds that they had not received their deposits back.

Rory Aitkens of LeedsStudentHomes.com has been told to pay back any money he owes by student housing charity Unipol or risk facing expulsion from a landlords scheme in the city. 

Leeds University's Student Union is advising people who have still not received their money back within the next 21 days to pursue it through the small claims court. 

Mr Aitkens signed up last year to Unipol's voluntary code of standards for student landlords, which aims provide protection for students.

However he now faces a tribunal after being accused of breaching the charity's code by failing to return deposits to students within six weeks of the end of their tenancies. 

The complaints against Mr Aitkens will be heard at a tribunal next week. The panel could permanently ban him from the signing up to the Unipol code of standards in future. 

The Government has introduced a new mandatory protection scheme for deposits which mean landlords have to keep the cash in separate accounts and return it to the students within 10 days of the end of the tenancy.

However the new rules only came into force this April and do not apply to any contract signed before then.

Mr Aitkens insisted to the Yorkshire Post he had very little money left to pay back. 

"In the last 10 days I have more or less done everything that needs to be done," he said. 

He said the majority of delays in returning deposits were in joint tenancy agreements where a section of the rent was still outstanding. 

"If you have a joint tenancy where four people have paid their rent but another student hasn't then they will all be waiting until the rent is paid before I can return their deposits," he said. 

He added that delays in deposits could also be caused by students moving out of properties at different times, making it difficult to establish who was liable to pay for any damage or the clean-up costs needed on a student property. 

Mr Aitkens also said LeedsStudentHomes.com no longer existed and he was no longer working as a letting agent. 

He said: "I have had contact with Unipol and I have said to them that the code of standards I signed up to was from February to February so it no longer applies to me as I have not been signed up since February this year." 

The Unipol code of standards administrator, Simon Kemp, said: "It is very disappointing to get so many complaints against a member of the code of standards, especially ones that concern allegations relating to the return of deposits. 

"I would not expect such a tag to apply to landlords or agents signed up to the Unipol Code. It is therefore in everybody's interest if Mr Aitkens simply returns the deposit money owed to his former tenants." 

Leeds University's Student Union community officer Sara Gill said: "With student debt ever increasing this situation is simply unacceptable, and we sincerely hope that Mr Aitkens' promise of repaying the money owed materialises." 

Tenants 'left in the dark' by company 

CASE STUDY 

TENANTS claim they have been left in the dark about where their money has gone after renting student properties from landlord Rory Aitkens. 

David Highfield, 22, of Woodhouse, rented a property in Burley Road, Leeds, from LeedsStudentHomes.com during the last academic year but says he has still yet to receive his deposit back. 

When he visited the firm's base in Victoria Road, Leeds, to retrieve his deposit he found the firm had moved and a new company was now based there. 

He said: "They gave me a forwarding address for LeedsStudentHomes.com but this was just a PO Box . There was a mobile number, but no one would ever get back to you.

"A month ago I received a letter saying our deposit would be paid and then on September 21 Mr Aitkens said we would be paid within 10 days – but 10 days has passed and as far as I know nobody has received their deposit back yet. 

"All of my housemates' rent was paid up and our bills were paid as well."

Mr Highfield, who is in his final year of a business course at Leeds Metropolitan University, is now planning to attend the tribunal hearing next

Source: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/students_landlord_in_clash_over_deposits_1_2471680 


Providence Properties update - from the BBC website

February 2, 2011 12:58 by Admin

In November, Watchdog ran a report on Tariq Zaman, one-time director of Providence Properties, a student lettings agency in Leeds. Tariq left students thousands of pounds out of pocket when he refused to refund their deposits. And his staff shared the same extraordinary attitude. Following further complaints to Watchdog we went back to see if anything had changed.

Since November none of the people we met have had their money back. Understandably they're furious.

Students Kate Hattersley and Rick Lord took Tariq to court and won. But there's still no sign of their deposits.

Kate and Rick resorted to using bailiffs to try and get the money back the court says they're owed. But the bailiffs couldn't find anything registered in Tariq's name to seize.

Kate said "I want my money back. I just want my money back. I know it's been a long time but it's still a lot of money."

It seems incredible that even with the law behind them, these students still haven't had their money back. We've now heard from plenty more people who say they haven't had their deposit back either. We needed answers from Tariq who has now resigned from Providence Properties Ltd, and were determined to track him down. When we finally did catch up with him he wasn't too keen to talk.

Eventually Tariq did agree to speak but despite the judgements against him he refused to accept he should give the money back.

Tariq said: "A lot of students, they want nice houses, but they just totally abuse them. I made a mistake, every time I received a county court judgement, because the tenant has been wrong, and I have not challenged them. Every single case I am going to reopen them and challenge every single case."

We've seen evidence that properties weren't damaged at all. But warming to his theme Tariq decides to show us exactly how students treat his houses.

We decided at Watchdog to take him up on the offer but were surprised when he took us to one that even he had to admit was in perfect nick.


He's keen to show us more but we don't bother, and we're no closer to knowing why he's still holding on to tenants' money.

Following our meeting with Tariq Zaman in Leeds, he sent us the following statement:

"I am a landlord involved in the student lettings market which, at times, can be a contentious business to be in. Often, student houses are vacated in a less than satisfactory condition and works are often required to rectify damage or losses at the houses. This is why deposits are taken in the first place.

"You will note that after being interviewed, I offered Mr Campbell the opportunity to visit some student properties that I own and operate.

"I offered Mr Campbell this opportunity to show the wide spectrum of student accommodation and the varying conditions in which it can be left.

"I note that Mr Campbell and his camera crew declined the opportunity to do so. For the sake of balanced reporting I would request that this point is made very clear in your broadcast.

"You will undoubtedly appreciate that there are cases where deposit money has to be used to rectify damage or losses then this can often result in a contentious situation.

"I wish to point out that all of my deposits are now lodged in compliance with the statutory tenancy deposit scheme.

"I am aware that there have been several County Court judgments against me. I stand by my comments that having County Court judgments against you does not make you a criminal. CCJs are purely a civil matter.

"For the avoidance of doubt, I am not aware of any current or previous criminal investigations involving me.

"I also stand by my comments that having a County Court judgment against someone does not mean that you will get your money back. There are many situations in which having a County Court judgement against someone does not mean you will get your money back including (for example) a situation where you get a judgment against someone but they don't have the money to pay the judgment; that is, enforcement action is unsuccessful. Another situation is where a judgment is obtained and no enforcement action is taken.

"I would suggest that this is not a question of my opinion, it is a fact.

"Having carefully reviewed my own records, I have noted that the judgments against me were granted, in the main, because I failed to defend the court actions being brought against me and therefore judgments were awarded in default. I do not recall an occasion where I actually attended court to present my side of the story. I should, of course, have attended court and defended the County Court actions, but running my business did not allow me the time to do so.

"I do now intend to seek appropriate professional advice to look at those judgments made against me."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2008/12/providence_properties_update.html 


My Homez

January 7, 2011 13:01 by Admin

The recent Watchdog programme on BBC1 showed a great number of students in Leeds who were unable to get their deposits back on lettings they’d taken out with Providence Properties and Tariq Zaman. We’ve received a great many comments and emails on the subject, with some people suggesting that Providence Properties had setup under a new website, Myhomez.co.uk.

In the Watchdog programme, Providence Properties stated that the deposits paid by students were paid to a company called Providence Lets, who they said were nothing to do with them, which is why students were unable to get their deposits back.

This all sounds fair enough; Providence Properties, Providence Lets and My Homez are all separate companies.

However, if you’re a bit of an expert online you can find out certain things that many people wouldn’t be able to. For example, Providence Properties domain name, providenceproperties.co.uk, is registered to Mohammed Ishaq. According to the Whois database, the registered address for Mohammed Ishaq is: 72, Victoria Road, Leeds, LS6 1DL, GB.

Nothing strange there.

Myhomez.co.uk however, is registered to Mohamed Ishaq, with the registrant’s address of: 72, Victoria Road, Leeds, LS6 1DL, GB.

The same person, with the same address. If you think back to the BBC Watchdog programme, where Providence Properties distanced themselves from Providence Lets, you might wonder if there is a website for Providence Lets as well. There isn’t, but there is a domain name: providencelets.co.uk.

Have a guess who that’s registered to… that’s right, Mohamed Ishaq. The registered address for providencelets.co.uk is 72, Victoria Road, Leeds, LS6 1DL, GB.

Incidentally, the website for Providence Properties, providenceproperties.co.uk, is hosted with 1and1 Internet, on the server with the IP address 87.106.210.120. An IP address for a server signifies the specific web server that the website is hosted on. If it’s a shared server there could be dozens of websites on there, if it’s a dedicated server there might only be one or two.

Domain Tools shows that there is one other website hosted on the same server as providencelets.co.uk… care to hazard a guess at what that website is?

That’s right; myhomez.co.uk is also hosted with 1and1 Internet, on the server with the IP 87.106.210.120.

They are the only two websites on that server.

If you look at the source code for the website providenceproperties.co.uk, you’ll see that the meta tags for the Keywords and Description form thus:

<meta name=”description” content=”Leeds student and professional letting estate agents providing student & professional accommodation and commercial property in Leeds City Centre, Headingley, Burley, Hyde Park and the surrounding areas.”>
<meta name=”keywords” content=”providence, properties, providence properties, letting agents in leeds, estate agents in leeds, student lettings, professional lettings, commercial lettings, professional accommodation, student accommodation, commercial property, corporate property, property for sale, sales, leeds, headingley, burley, hyde park, city centre, west yorkshire, uk”>

Nothing strange there, a letting agent in Leeds would have keywords like that. I wonder if the meta tags for myhomez.co.uk are very different. What do you think?

<meta name=”description” content=”Leeds student and professional letting estate agents providing student &amp; professional accommodation and commercial property in Leeds City Centre, Headingley, Burley, Hyde Park and the surrounding areas.” />
<meta name=”keywords” content=”MyHomez, properties, myhomez properties, my homez, letting agents in leeds, estate agents in leeds, student lettings, professional lettings, commercial lettings, professional accommodation, student accommodation, commercial property, corporate property, property for sale, sales, leeds, headingley, burley, hyde park, city centre, west yorkshire, uk” />

That’s pretty similar. It’s almost as if they were the same company, but of course they’re not.

In my industry, SEO, it’s very important that if you want two websites to appear unrelated from each other that you register them with different Whois details, with different registrars, host them with different hosting companies and on different servers. Otherwise it’s very easy for someone, or indeed Google, to identify that the websites are owned by the same person.

I’m not suggesting that that’s what Providence Properties and My Homez have done. I’m sure they’re completely unrelated websites, unrelated companies and have just been unlucky to end up on the same server, at the same host, registered to the same person, with the same meta tags.

Just unlucky I guess

Source: http://www.mrdaz.com/my-homez/