Tenants Question about ending a contract early

DVardysShadow

franklee wrote: »

For how long do you think he could do that in the case where a tenancy isn't due to start for seven months? Are you really saying a tenant who signed first could be left in limbo for the seven months not knowing if the tenancy will be starting, unable to go elsewhere in case the landlord signs the contract to make it binding yet the landlord could still pull out. Sorry but I don't think so.

It seems it already has Agent's signature. Really, I am not going to press my argument all the way to certainty against yours. So far it is a possibility, depending on the Landlord's actions and on the extent to which a court might make a contract hold. It is enough for my argument to be a possibility for the OP to need to act on it and get the contract anulled to avoid consequences. But your argument needs to be a cert for the OP to be confident to walk away from this without consequences. Your argument is essentially that the OP need do nothing.

Now if there is any consistent theme on these forums it is this: "I signed this contract with <company>. But because of <reason>, I didn't need it any more, {so I phoned them and cancelled} / {I thought because of <reason> I didn't need to tell them}. Now, <n> {months} / {years } later, { I am being threatened by Debt Collectors} / {I have a CCJ which I cannot pay}.

I would hate for someone to get into that position through taking wrong advice from here.

franklee wrote: »

I'd suggest landlord just keeping the property empty isn't something of value being passed, whereas payment of a deposit is.

What do you think in relation to this:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=44083&postcount=2

Again, to be useful, I only have to speak to possibility, you have to speak to certainty. I do think that relying on keeping the property empty not being consideration is putting your neck on the block. Remember this is common law, not statute, so a common sense argument that consideration is about fulfilling your side of the contract can quite feasibly be upheld.

As for the post, although I have found the full thread, to me it is still a little out of its own context. For instance, the stipulation that a deed is required seems to miss the mark for general contract law, whereas it may be correct for tenancy law. And that is the nub of my position. That there may not be enough in place to create a valid tenancy, but there may well be enough to have a contract. The only missing element to create a tenancy AFAICS is handing over keys. It may be enough for the Landlord to write and say "the keys will be available on <date>" to put a consideration in place.

As the OP says:

mannaroth wrote: »

...My girlfriend and I ... have already signed the Tenancy Agreement; we have not yet completed our guarantor forms or paid any of the deposit, however I was informed that our signatures on the Agreement will legally bind us to the property.

... girlfriend's parents are causing a fuss [and] are refusing to sign the guarantor form for her side. They are convinced that we can breach the Tenancy Agreement now and only incur a £50 signing fee; I am not convinced they are correct. They also think that if we move in and then split up, the fee to allow us to leave will be £300.

OP has Agent on one side saying that the contract stands and parents possibly with clouded vision saying the opposite. Now Agents are fond of reinterpreting the law to their customers in their own favour. But equally, they will not want to remarket this property until every last property on their books is let. So, if it comes to the crunch, they will be telling LL that tenancy is valid and LL may well feel inclined to seek compensation from OP. In other words, we can see this is going down a route towards legal confrontation. It does not need the legal position I have presented to stand up, it only needs the LL to think it worth a try for the OP to land on the defence of a CCJ action. On the other hand, parents who have daughter's best interests at heart seem blind to the legal possibilities.

My conclusion? OP needs to take action to get this agreement off the table sooner rather than later

mannaroth

Hey hey, update;

We've decided to go through with it anyway, I can confirm that the contract has been signed by both us and the Landlord, however her parents still refuse to sign the Guarantor form.

Upon contacting the landlord, they explained that they require a Parental Guarantee for both tenants to cover the entire rent. Can anyone hypothesise what might happen if we are unable to provide the second guarantor? I.e would the landlord try to pull out of the contract?

I have attached a blank copy of the contract (identifying details removed) if that helps.
http://www.filefront.com/15310381/new_student_contract%5B1%5D.rtf

Fire_Fox

Have your parents signed for both tenants to cover the entire rent? If so why do you need another guarantor?

mannaroth

No, my parents have signed to cover my half. Her parents havn't signed.

DVardysShadow

mannaroth wrote: »

No, my parents have signed to cover my half. Her parents havn't signed.

Are you sure they have only signed to guarantee half?

I think your tenancy now stands or falls based on whether the LL accepts a half guarantee. If they reject, then you should get this in writing or confirm it by writing yourself. If they accept, then you have the place. Your big problem will be if your GF is pressured into not moving in with you - in which case you will be probably pursued for all the rent [joint and several liability] and you will be left to recover her half on your own

clutton_2

if a guarantor guarantees his family member's "half" of the tenancy i dont see how on earth this can work.. as each signatory to the AST signs to agree that they are each individually and jointly responsible for all of the rent anyway... so if one leaves the other tenant is responsible for all the rent - so one guarantor can be asked to guarantee the whole rent

what do other LLs think ?

i would never accept "half" a guarantor...

PROFESSIONAL_LANDLORD

Neither would I.

Time consuming, also more referencing costs for the tenant.

mannaroth

The agreement is listed as two tenants, each paying £65 a week. My guarantor form covers my payment of £65 a week.

It's just like any student property; the guarantor covers one person's rent.

Yes, I am positive my guarantor only covers my rent. I emailed them and they specifically said they require a guarantor for each tenant.

N79

mannaroth wrote: »

The agreement is listed as two tenants, each paying £65 a week. My guarantor form covers my payment of £65 a week.

It's just like any student property; the guarantor covers one person's rent.

Yes, I am positive my guarantor only covers my rent. I emailed them and they specifically said they require a guarantor for each tenant.

Tenancies do not work this way - they work as people have outlined above. There is only ever 1 legal tenant who may be composed of one or more people who, in colloquial English, are called tenants.

mannaroth

The guarantee form states that the guarantee is "Not joint and several. It is solely for your daughter/son".