No contract with LA

Thrugelmir

Skag wrote: »

So they are controlling my house without my singed consent.

In your own words !

however they started managing the property

You could have have said no thanks but you didn't.

Skag

So why then have a signed agreement?

anselld

Skag wrote: »

So in that sense I can just go ahead and create a contract with anybody's name for any reason.

Four elements are required to form a contract ...

Offer - they offered you a contract with terms
Acceptance - you demonstrated this by allowing them to manage the property and accepting rent
Consideration - you have been paid
Intent - again you demonstrated this by allowing them to manage properties for four years without issue.

davidmcn

Skag wrote: »

So they are controlling my house without my singed consent.

They're also sending you the rent. Or do you think they should stop that because you haven't signed anything?

G_M

If, as you seem to believe, there is no contract, then they have no need to pass you any money the tenants happen to give them.

Would you have been happy and agreed? Or would you have demanded the money?

By allowing them to put the tenants in your property on your behalf, by giving them (I assume) keys, by accepting rent from them that they have collected on your behalf from the tenants, you have clearly demonstrated that a contract exists between you and the agent.

Next question: what are the terms of this contract? Either they are

* as proposed by the written document they provided to you
* or they are verbal

You could try to claim that the terms are verbal, and in some (or many) ways differ from the document, but you would struggle to persuade a court of this.

If, for example, you claimed that there was a verbal agreement that if you wished to end the contract, only 1 month, not 6 months commission was payable, the judge would almost certainly expect there to have been a letter from the agent or yourself, to the other, confirming this.

The presence of the written document, albeit unsigned, would carry far more weight in court than a claim by one party of an unlikely verbal term to the contract, especially as the court knows agents don't work often to verbal contracts!

Now read:


Letting Agents (Tips for selecting, and tips for sacking them)

casper_g

Skag wrote: »

They also have a contract with the tenants till next year.

No, they almost certainly don't. You are the landlord, and the tenancy agreement is a contract between you and the tenant. The agent may have arranged the tenancy and even signed the agreement, but they did so as your agent (you had a contract with them as discussed above).

This will become important if/when you sack your agent. You will need to write to the tenant instructing them to start paying the rent to you directly instead of through the agent, but the tenancy will continue whether you use the same agent, a different one or none at all.

Skag

Apologies for resurrecting this thread.
I have some new input on this.

It turns out that I have a TA with the tenants (signed on my behalf from the LA) but haven't signed an agreement with the LA (I only have the document emailed, I never returned it).

I spoke with NLA (National Landlords Association) and mentioned what it's been said in the thread i.e. that it's implied that they are my managing agent and that the contract terms are implied, more specifically the "end of contract" closure where the LL pays 6 months rent if he decided to end the contact.
They replied that this is most certainly not true.

Someone is right and someone is wrong, who though? I think that NLA are experts on this (otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place?)

agrinnall

Well in that case take the advice of the NLA and break the (in your view non-existent) contract and we'll see what happens. If the LA decide to take you to court I'd expect them to win, but perhaps the NLA will offer to reimburse you if you do - I'm not holding my breath though.

Guest101

Well the posters here are right, of course.

It sounds to me like Uve asked the NLA about a specific clause, which obviously they won't be able to answer.

If in doubt, pay for advice...

Skag

Guest101 wrote: »

Well the posters here are right, of course.

It sounds to me like Uve asked the NLA about a specific clause, which obviously they won't be able to answer.

If in doubt, pay for advice...

No, I've told them the complete story and then mentioned about the contract (that it's not signed). I even mentioned the comments from this thread such as "I've given them the authority to manage the property". They said if you haven't signed the contract then there is no contract and you are not liable for its clauses.