You are here

Home

Brand Vaughan

Brand Vaughan Make a Legal Threat Against a Student Tenant: Solidarity Federation’s Campaign Intensifies

Brighton lettings agency Brand Vaughan is facing a growing campaign by Solidarity Federation, after the agency deducted £390 from the deposit of a student tenant for cleaning and redecoration. The tenant left her room clean, and the deductions made by the agency contain a number of problems, including not evidencing an attempt to procure the most reasonable deal, as they should, and not all of the deductions being sufficiently costed. Moreover, the tenant reported serious concerns regarding the behaviour of her housemates to the agency during her tenancy, which was pertinent to the issues that the agency claim require deposit deductions, and which was the source of a great deal of distress for the tenant, who had to move out because of them.

Public Campaign Against Brand Vaughan Continues

A tenant has been organising with SolFed after deposit deductions were made from their joint-tenancy deposit, despite the fact they left the property in a clean condition. The deductions were unreasonable, not costed in enough detail, and, on top of this, service from the agency was poor throughout her tenancy. This even included not being provided keys when locks were changed during the tenancy.


Brand Vaughan’s response to the demands for £390 to be returned from the deposit, and for £541 compensation, has included making legal threats, as well as claiming that the problems with the tenancy were not their responsibility. The landlord of the property is in-fact Tom Ghibaldan, chief executive of Brand Vaughan. Deposit deductions claimed by Brand Vaughan were in the service of their own chief executive.

Brighton Solidarity Federation opens a dispute with Brand Vaughan

Brighton Solidarity Federation has started a dispute with Brand Vaughan, a large estate agency with branches in Hove, Kemptown and Preston Park. A tenant has been organising with SolFed after deposit deductions were made from their joint-tenancy deposit, despite the fact they left the property in a clean condition. The deductions were unreasonable, not costed in enough detail, on top of this, service from the agency was poor throughout her tenancy.


Along with the tenant, Brighton SolFed wrote to Brand Vaughan December 1st, explaining the issues and outlining options for redress. Brand Vaughan claimed the dispute was something they could not address, after they had opened up a TDS case without the tenant’s express permission. The tenant was wholly unsatisfied that months after the end of her tenancy, she had not been returned any of her deposit.