Landord - Agency fight, Tenant in the middle *UPDATED*

clutton_2

pyueck says ""It sounds like the landlord is a bit dodgy, by the sound of those unenforcable contracutal clauses. ""

i expect it was the agency who provided the AST......

the landlord is entitled to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure s/he receives the rent... if s/he is terminating their contract with a letting agent it is common sense that the tenant now needs to pay the landlord.....

being nitpicky about bank account changes would be seen as "de minimus" by a judge and would not be considered worthy of disagreement...

clutton_2

very wise Chris - good short summary, nice and professional... and to the point..


I suggest amending the 28 days to 14 - that is what the law says - and it actually takes 5 minutes on the web........

terryw

CHR15 wrote: »

Okay,
We're writing a letter to the effect that the original agreement still remains valid, albeit with an amendment to the payment method.

The Tenant is still in a Statutory Periodic Tenancy and should remain so (no new 6 month term).

The Deposit has been previously supplied and remains valid.

The Deposit should be registered with a Tenancy Deposit Scheme within 28 days.

Property will be yielded in a clean state and condition at the end of the term (fair wear and tear expected).


the other bits and pieces could well lead to more hassle than it's worth at this stage.

I assume that the Sept 09 contract was for six months.

pyueck

clutton wrote: »

pyueck says ""It sounds like the landlord is a bit dodgy, by the sound of those unenforcable contracutal clauses. ""

i expect it was the agency who provided the AST......

the landlord is entitled to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure s/he receives the rent... if s/he is terminating their contract with a letting agent it is common sense that the tenant now needs to pay the landlord.....

being nitpicky about bank account changes would be seen as "de minimus" by a judge and would not be considered worthy of disagreement...

Never, you are changing who you pay, not the bank account details, its a major change in the contract.

pyueck

CHR15 wrote: »

Okay,
We're writing a letter to the effect that the original agreement still remains valid, albeit with an amendment to the payment method.

The Tenant is still in a Statutory Periodic Tenancy and should remain so (no new 6 month term).

The Deposit has been previously supplied and remains valid.

The Deposit should be registered with a Tenancy Deposit Scheme within 28 days.

Property will be yielded in a clean state and condition at the end of the term (fair wear and tear expected).


the other bits and pieces could well lead to more hassle than it's worth at this stage.

Thats fine, although I would charge a fee for this. Look at the agents t&c's if there are admin fees for changes of this sort, under UCTA you have a right to charge the equivilant. I wouldn't say anything about the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, no need and could put you in hot water. What about the 3x your deposit compensation, you derserve it? Also make sure you get this signed and witnessed.

RedSoleShoes

clutton wrote: »

the landlord is entitled to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure s/he receives the rent... if s/he is terminating their contract with a letting agent it is common sense that the tenant now needs to pay the landlord........

Not quite. This LL is changing the terms of the original contract so therefore the old contract needs to be terminated (as per it's agreed terms) before a new one takes over. At which point, the tenant can reject the new agreement and move out and also claim back her deposit.

The LL has a contract with the agency, which would also have a minimum term and if this has not passed yet then the agency can claim back fees that it would lose from the months that they are no longer managing the property.

RedSoleShoes

At the end of the day, in this case, the LL has decided to no longer use the agent.

Therefore, LL must sort this out himself with the agent and continue with the contract already in place with his tenant. Or, if he wants a new deposit and new tenancy agreement, he MUST terminate the old contract in line with the terms within that contract and pay back the deposit to the tenant. Then he can set up a new agreement/contract directly with the tenant and ask for a new deposit.

If the tenant does not agree with the new terms, then she can move out or try and negotiate different terms.

clutton_2

Pyueck says ""Never, you are changing who you pay, not the bank account details, its a major change in the contract""



i utterly disagree with both you and Lily ... if a LL is not getting the rent from the LA - a LL has a right to requst that the tenant pay the landlord direct because the legal contract (even if it was signed by the agent) is between landlord and tenant....

it would be utterly foolhardy of any tenant to continue paying their rent to an agent that was not passing it on to the LL after s/he had been informed that a new payment method was in place direct to the landlord.

small changes such as these do not need whole new contracts... you can add a signed addendum to the end of the AST....

for example when tenants want to change payment dates when their jobs change landlords generally dont go through all the rigmarole of a new AST - they come to a written agreement as to the new payment date as an addendum...

there has to be some common sense in this... if both parties (LL&T) agreee - i cannot see what we are arguing about.......

princeofpounds

Pyeuck, you are completely wrong that they should continue paying the agent, for two reasons.

The first is that the contract is for rent payment is to the LL. If the agent is no longer an agent of the landlord, then they are NOT fulfilling the tenancy agreement and count as not paying rent. They should no more pay it to the agent than they would any other third party.

The other reason is that the LL and T are the parties to the contract. It is perfectly acceptable for them to agree to new payment terms mutually.

The agents are nothing to the T

princeofpounds

Furthermore, I should add that it is ridiculous to believe that two parties to a contract remained bound to a contract in all it's minutiae even if both parties agree it is not in their interests. There is a reason you can supplement contracts with new agreements that supercede only parts of the original contract, it is silly to require revision of all the terms.

To give an example, every time you are given a raise at work it creates a new contractual salary, but you are not required to sign a new contract of employment each time.

Clutton is giving the right advice, an lily and pyeuck are not- continuing to pay the agent will cause serious trouble. Just make sure you get the new payment instructions in writing.