can a tenancy contract be considered renewed without tenants signing it?

rpc

You can find a summary of the requirements for offer/acceptance here: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Offer-and-acceptance.php

It sounds as though you are bound by a new contract, but the question is whether there is any evidence. If you want the contract, write a letter confirming your acceptance (refer to phone calls) and that should serve the same purpose as a new contract ("I confirm we agreed new contract, same terms as the old one except rent X and dates Y"). If you do not want a contract then you can try to claim you only agreed to look at the terms of the new one. If I received a contract with the wrong names on, I might well send it back for them to be corrected before reviewing the terms. For all you know, they sent you someone else's contract.

In Scotland, it is possible for a contract to renew automatically under 'tacit relocation', but that only applies if stated in the original contract (you don't say where you are).

rpc

postexitus wrote: »

P.s. i am paying the new rent

You are probably scuppered then. The action of paying the new rent clearly indicates you accepted the new contract. If you did not, you would not have started to pay the new rent.

Actions speak more loudly than words, so protesting that you did not formally agree is not likely to get anywhere in court.

DVardysShadow

rpc wrote: »

You are probably scuppered then. The action of paying the new rent clearly indicates you accepted the new contract. If you did not, you would not have started to pay the new rent.

Actions speak more loudly than words, so protesting that you did not formally agree is not likely to get anywhere in court.

I would read it the other way about. OP agreed to rent increase, LA sent out new contract. Rent increase paid, contract not signed. LA are scuppered in court because they have to prove that there was an intent to commit to a new fixed term. All they have is evidence that a rent increase was agreed to.

OK, there is a certain implication that because the contract document was sent out, the terms of that contract were agree. But then LA's send out contract documents and charge a fee at the drop of a hat, so the implication does not carry much weight IMO. However, if a renewal fee had been paid, it is a different matter.

postexitus

I didn't pay the renewal fee, and they didn't chase it at all.

vuvuzela

postexitus wrote: »

I didn't pay the renewal fee, and they didn't chase it at all.

Doesn't really, matter, as said above you are paying the increased sum per month and you verbally agreed. They may well try and take the fee out of any deposit they hold at the end of the term (whether this is legal or not is another matter...)

Ulfar

You have agreed to the new rent, but I would argue that you haven't agreed to a new fixed term as you don't know how long it is, it doesn't have to be six months it could be a year or 2 years or any other period.

If they get uppity I would state that you agreed to sign a renewal contract. They sent you the wrong persons contract which you returned(also a data protection breach) asking for the correct contract, which they haven't done.

This to me is a clear indication on your part that while your are willing to renew your contract you want it in writing to review the terms. This hasn't been done so you aren't bound by any new terms apart from paying extra rent. You have now moved onto a periodic tenancy.

If they try to take you to court they would need to prove their case, good luck without a signed contract. Plus the judge will look at how reasonable each party has been and again you are n the winning side.

rpc

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I would read it the other way about. OP agreed to rent increase, LA sent out new contract. Rent increase paid, contract not signed. LA are scuppered in court because they have to prove that there was an intent to commit to a new fixed term. All they have is evidence that a rent increase was agreed to.

Possibly, and I think it would have to end in court to be sure. However, I would say that the LA offered "new rent + fixed term". In the absence of anything from the T, paying the new rent shows acceptance of all conditions. There was no counter-offer or qualified acceptance, so the last offer (new rent + fixed term) is the one that was agreed.

I think that is a stronger argument than the "contract not signed" argument but the OP could certainly try to argue she accepted the rent and not the fixed term and the lack of a signed contract is evidence of that. I suspect the LA might accept that (or at least not be bothered with court) and let OP leave. Particularly if OP cooperates a bit with viewings. I doubt most LA's have much knowledge of contract law.

DVardysShadow

rpc wrote: »

Possibly, and I think it would have to end in court to be sure. However, I would say that the LA offered "new rent + fixed term". In the absence of anything from the T, paying the new rent shows acceptance of all conditions. There was no counter-offer or qualified acceptance, so the last offer (new rent + fixed term) is the one that was agreed.

I think that is a stronger argument than the "contract not signed" argument but the OP could certainly try to argue she accepted the rent and not the fixed term and the lack of a signed contract is evidence of that. I suspect the LA might accept that (or at least not be bothered with court) and let OP leave. Particularly if OP cooperates a bit with viewings. I doubt most LA's have much knowledge of contract law.

In the absence of anything from T paying the new rent only shows acceptance of the new rent. What you are proposing is a licence for the LA to state that T agreed to stand on his head singing the national anthem

jjlandlord

It's about the balance of probabilities.

It seems clear that a new fixed term at a higher rent was agreed. OP seems to have kept to the agreement and started paying the higher rent.
Moreover, when the written agreement was sent to him after the new agreed fixed term had started, OP only requested a new copy to sent with the names corrected.

You never know, but my money is on a judge concluding that a fixed term tenancy exists.

rpc

DVardysShadow wrote: »

In the absence of anything from T paying the new rent only shows acceptance of the new rent.

In contract law, you cannot accept part of an offer. You accept the whole offer or you make a counter-offer. That then leads to the question of whether the fixed term and rent were a single offer or two seperate offers.

I agree with jjlandlord about what a judge would conclude, but the OP can probably swing it to get out of the contract if they wish. By making the argument that there as no agreement to a fixed term (only an agreement to consider one, the evidence being the unsigned contract) an LA (and hopefully LL) is likely to be baffled enough and probably won't want to bother with court.