RENTERS in London took part in a “phone-banking picket” yesterday after a Romford-based letting agency allegedly refused to repay a tenant thousands of pounds for a property she never lived in.

The London Renters Union (LRU) claim Advance Estates pushed the tenant into an agreement that required her to pony up six months’ worth of rent, totalling £4,800, up front last March in order to reserve a property in the area.

The tenant, who wishes only to be known as Mary, is in her 50s, suffers from anxiety and depression and is currently claiming housing benefit.

Mary maintains she was inside the letting agency for four hours, suffered a panic attack because of the stress and was bullied into signing the contract. Advance Estates denies this.

Days later Mary decided that she did not want the deal to go ahead and tried to back out. Advance Estates refused to refund her, claiming that she had already signed the agreement.

Mary took her case to the property redress scheme, a government-backed service that hears complaints from renters and landlords.

“Her case was dismissed because of lack of evidence,” an LRU spokesman told the Star.

“However she was also told by the scheme that there was little evidence to support Advance Estates’s case either, meaning that in a case of a renter’s word against an agent, the scheme sides with the agent.”

The LRU, a coalition of housing groups and activists, first became aware of Mary’s situation when she attended a Hackney branch meeting last September.

The LRU said Mary’s “case highlights how the law is often rigged against renters and in favour of landlords, agents and developers.”

The union asked its followers on social media on Sunday night to call the agency in the hope of flooding its phone line with messages in support of Mary. “We’re stepping up our campaign,” the post reads, “and making the collective voice of renters heard.

“If you can take five minutes from your day, join our phone-banking picket which we are running Monday to Thursday this week.”

The LRU says Advance Estates is not taking the union seriously and demands it pays Mary back the full £4,800.

"They think that we’re just a handful of activists and that they can just weather this out," the spokesman said.

“But this phone-banking picket shows the strength of our numbers and so far our action has been quite disruptive to them.

“We believe this case is symbolic of many of the problems renters face in the private rented sector, including how renters on benefits are discriminated against, and how agents and landlords can use ‘Section 21’ no-fault eviction orders to manipulate renters.”

A spokesman for Advance Estates told the Star that Mary was found twice to have “no case to answer” by the scheme.