agency going into liquidation with deposit and monthly payment before move in date

[Switch123]

Hello everyone! I need your advise:

In June I found an apartment and paid deposit and month payment for it. The move in day should be in July. Two weeks later, before move in date my agent send me an email that landlady cancelled agreement and their agency is going into administration. He kept emailing me a week after that that he is trying to raise monies for me, but I haven't received anything.
I applied to court in august, claiming two defendants: agency and landlord. The landlady filled the defense form that she never ever signed anything and never talked with the agency.
In June apartment was advertised by at least 6 agents, I took a look on the apartment with another agency than I signed a lease. The agreement is signed by me only, but not by the agent or landlord.But I have a signed proposal between landlord and agency that she agreed to rent her apartment, I have email from the agent from June that he is trying to negotiate with the landlord because other agent are putting pressure on her because he've stolen other agency client (me) and after that I asked him to prove that she agreed and he send me signed proposal. and I have email from him from July where he suggested my a refund and called the landlady an @ss.



I think that she signed the proposal, but she did not get the money and that is why she cancelled the agreement. Who is responsible for the deposit? Can i claim the landlord? Does anybody know how the law works in this case?

Thank you very much in advance for your answer!

[Interlaken]

The landlord is responsible in law for the deposit.

Pursue the landlord via the county court or money claim online.

[Switch123]

I applied to the small court. The landlord filled in the defense form that she neither signed anything nor instructed agent to take money from me, despite I took a look on the apartment. Does it worse a chance in the court for me (tenant)? Or it will be just a wast of my money

[Lawcruncher]

The question is not what the landlord signed or specifically authorised, but whether she instructed the agent to find a tenant. If she did, then the agent had ostensible authority to do the sort of things letting agents regularly do even if the landlord specifically told the agent he had no authority to do a particular thing. A prospective tenant is entitled to assume a letting agent can take deposits and advanced rent unless he has been given notice to the contrary. In cases such as this the law apportions the risk to the landlord.

[MrJohnnyB]

Presumably the action of granting a letting agent a key to gain access maybe sufficient to satisfy the court that the letting agent had received such authority.

[Lawcruncher]

Rather I would say that it is enough for the court to conclude that the agent had been appointed. On what terms the agent was appointed is not really relevant since a prospective tenant is entitled to assume that any particular letting agent has authority to do all the things that letting agents in general do. If a letting agent fails to follow instructions or exceeds his authority but still operates "normally" his actions bind the landlord.