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

clutton_2

pyeuck just likes making as many landlords' lives as miserable as possible.....

pyueck

clutton wrote: »

pyeuck just likes making as many landlords' lives as miserable as possible.....

Not true. Have you ever felt that many landlords and agents try to make as much money from tenants as possible with no regard for the tenant? I hardly think i'm giving any worse than tenants get when you consider the disgusting practices commonplace in the industry.

DVardysShadow

pyueck wrote: »

The trouble is by changing to paying the landlord directly, you are not fulfilling your obligation of the original contract. It sounds like the landlord is a bit dodgy, by the sound of those unenforcable contracutal clauses. Why leave yourself exposed to any litigation. You signed the contract, it says to pay the agent, therefore pay the agent.

The only possible way that I would change is if I had a letter signed by both the agent and landlord, and witnessed that said that they were both happy for the payment method to be changed and that no other terms of the agreement would be affected by this, and then get advice from Shelter.

I am afraid you are weak on contract law. The Agent is not a party to the contract between LL and T. T is not a party to the contract between LL and the Agent. There is no contract between the Agent and T. Therefore there is no relationship between the Agent and T.

If LL says pay direct to LL, then that is exactly in line with the contract. If Agent does not sign up or it is not witnessed and someone takes your advice, but the LL has told T not to pay Agent, then LL would win in court against T if T continued to pay Agent and Agent did not hand money over.

The instruction to pay LL direct is exactly comparable with an instruction from a LL with no Agent to pay money into this bank account or that one. In such a scenario the Bank would be the LL's Agent for receiving payments - and you would not be on here suggesting that T should reject LL's instructions to pay into a different bnak account, unless there was 'a letter signed by both the bank and landlord, and witnessed that said that they were both happy for the payment method to be changed'

pyueck wrote: »

clutton wrote: »

pyeuck just likes making as many landlords' lives as miserable as possible.....

Not true. Have you ever felt that many landlords and agents try to make as much money from tenants as possible with no regard for the tenant? I hardly think i'm giving any worse than tenants get when you consider the disgusting practices commonplace in the industry.

You are potentially making the lives of decent Landlords and decent Tenants more difficult with ill-conceived advice based on a lack of understanding of the legalities.

Zelie

Can somebody clarify regarding the deposit please. I thought that the deposits of existing tenants did not have to be put in a scheme and that signing a new contract but remaining in the same property counted as being an existing tenant and not a new one.

DVardysShadow

Zelie wrote: »

Can somebody clarify regarding the deposit please. I thought that the deposits of existing tenants did not have to be put in a scheme and that signing a new contract but remaining in the same property counted as being an existing tenant and not a new one.

As I understand it, if a pre-Deposit Scheme goes periodic, then there is no need to place the deposit in a scheme. But if a new AST is signed, then a scheme must be used.

pyueck

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I am afraid you are weak on contract law. The Agent is not a party to the contract between LL and T. T is not a party to the contract between LL and the Agent. There is no contract between the Agent and T. Therefore there is no relationship between the Agent and T.

If LL says pay direct to LL, then that is exactly in line with the contract. If Agent does not sign up or it is not witnessed and someone takes your advice, but the LL has told T not to pay Agent, then LL would win in court against T if T continued to pay Agent and Agent did not hand money over.

The instruction to pay LL direct is exactly comparable with an instruction from a LL with no Agent to pay money into this bank account or that one. In such a scenario the Bank would be the LL's Agent for receiving payments - and you would not be on here suggesting that T should reject LL's instructions to pay into a different bnak account, unless there was 'a letter signed by both the bank and landlord, and witnessed that said that they were both happy for the payment method to be changed'



You are potentially making the lives of decent Landlords and decent Tenants more difficult with ill-conceived advice based on a lack of understanding of the legalities.

You are right in that the tenancy agreement is between the landlord and tenant. Unfortunately the agreement says to pay the agent. If the tenant pays the agent, it is not their fault if the money doesn't get to the intended recipient.

clutton_2

re the deposit question from Zelie .... to be on the safe side i utterly agree with DVardy.....

DVardysShadow

pyueck wrote: »

You are right in that the tenancy agreement is between the landlord and tenant. Unfortunately the agreement says to pay the agent. If the tenant pays the agent, it is not their fault if the money doesn't get to the intended recipient.

It becomes the tenant's problem once the Landlord has said to pay direct if tenant is obstinately paying Agent.