Pre-Tenancy Nightmare

Guest101

melstar11 wrote: »

It is ambiguous as it is currently written and is it such a big deal to amend it? Make a manuscript anendment and both sign it if you don't want to re-print it. I think it's a good sign they've actually read the tenancy agreement. Many don't or only selectively read the bits that matter to them.

It's not ambiguous in the slightest, they are complaining that the inventory is titled (basically generically) "Furniture and fittings"


It does not list any furniture, they are being ridiculously picky.

Guest101

Kynthia wrote: »

So they've signed, have you signed? If so then they have to take up the tenancy or pay your losses for breaking the contract. Same for you, if you prevent them from beginning the tenancy then you need to pay any costs they incur.

99/100 it's irrelevant if the LL signs.


The LL offers the contract, it would be reasonable to the court that the LL would not offer terms they did not accept


(the 1/100 is when the tenant asks to change a term - which I can understand why one might think would apply here. In this case it's not even a term in the contract, but the title of a separate document they are quibbling) - So signature would be irrelevant.


At this stage it is a contract, not a tenancy, so the LL would have to mitigate losses. Which is fairly straight forward if they re-advertise straight away

elwappo

Hi all,
thanks for the replies. Just to summarise:

I gave them the tenancy agreement and they took it away for a week to read and then returned it to me signed.

I then signed it in front of them. There was no pressure on them to sign it. They had it for a week.

I have already removed the word furniture and furnishings once from the tenancy, even though I explained the inventory and photos prove there is no furniture at the house and I text her formally to say that I do not and cannot not dispute the house is unfurnished.

I have a feeling, a parent or a boyfriend are influencing (which she told me informally in chatting, that he wanted to wait to look for a house until in the summer).

Whilst I appreciate it's dotting the i's and crossing the t's, this has left a bitter taste in my mouth as I have waited 6 weeks for them to move in, and now at the 11th hour, start picking apart a sound AST/inventory.

I'm going to speak to her later today and see if I can get any semblance of why the word "furniture" spooks them, or if it's someone else's input.

I've bent over backwards for them thus far. I really can't see how this tenancy could be anything but a nightmare now.

G_M

Re-advertise and claim the costs that advertising, + rent for the period between their proposed tenancy start date and whenever you get a new tenant in.

Have you got any of their money? What? No 'holding deposit? This is exactly why they exist?

greensalad

This might be one of those things where it's easier to just do as asked?

You don't need to write the whole contract again, just make an addendum. Sign that off. Done. It's a 10 minute job.

Pick your battles. Wouldn't you rather have tenants who read the contract and want everything above board than the fun of finding another tenant who might be worse?

franklee

I'm puzzled by the responses as I thought it's normal for a tenant to be given the chance to mark up the inventory with any discrepancies and that this then becomes the accepted baseline to work from. This is either done on a LL and tenant walk through on moving in day or, as the agents do things here, by giving the tenant 7 days to amend and return the inventory. Therefore the tenants can cross out the offending word furniture for themselves. Certainly when a tenant I wouldn't sign an inventory I disagreed with and have always been given the chance to update it. It's not as if they are raising something that the LL thinks isn't true so who cares if the word furniture is crossed out in the title.

Of far more concern is this

elwappo wrote: »

The woman provided me with a sound credit rating, where she specified his isn't that great, and yet to be provided (of which I will not hand over a key without).

So the OP had no intention of handing over the keys tomorrow anyway as he hasn't credit checked the male tenant and the barney about the furniture wording is beside the point.

Pixie5740

Once I've been given a TA ahead of the day I got the keys. Every other time I was given a copy the day I Got the keys. In any instance this couple took the TA away for a week and returned it signed which they shouldn't have find if they weren't happy with it.

Equally the OP shouldn't have given them a TA to sign, and he sure as hell shouldn't have signed it himself BEFORE referencing the tenants.

There have been eff ups all round.

G_M

franklee wrote: »

I'm puzzled by the responses as I thought it's normal for a tenant to be given the chance to mark up the inventory with any discrepancies and that this then becomes the accepted baseline to work from.

Indeed. If there are inaccuracies in the inventory, like a carpet described as 'brand ew' when it is clearly stained, then the tenant has every right to get it amended.

But this is not an inaccuracy.

So no amendment is needed.

OP has already amended it once, to keep the tenants happy, but they are still not satisfied. OP has done enough and tenants should now take it or leave it. 'Leaving it' of course involves breach of contract with financial implcations.

To what extent the OP chooses to enforce for that breach is up to him, but clearly these tenants are going to be picky. I guarantee that within a week of moving in (if they do) they will be complaining about something. And then something else. However well-maintained the property is.

As others have suggested, the OP also has much to learn (vetting, contracts, deposits, etc) but that's a different matter.

Miss_Samantha

The prospective tenant is right to be careful. If the agreement is for the property to be unfurnished it should be spelled out in the agreement, and/or the list of what the landlord should provide must be part of the agreement.

The prospective tenant seems to insist on the agreement clearly stating that the property will be unfurnished.

I don't see any issue in amending the agreement.

Derboy

It sounds to me like they just need to have the terminology explained to them in a reasonable way. Sending texts isn't the best way to have a meaningful two-way conversation (in a business context it's both amateur and lazy - anything that needs confirmed in writing should in the very least warrant an email). Have you actually explained to them that that furniture is just a contractual term for "fixtures and fittings" etc?

Are you actually giving this the attention it deserves? It doesn't sound like you amended the AST properly in the first place as per the tenants request and you're sending text messages instead of proper written confirmations. It sounds to me that you're not taking their concerns seriously because you view it as a hassle. They are your customer and they want it clear and unambiguously stated in the contract that they're signing up to that the property is unfurnished.

Personally If it were me I'd sort the AST, have a reasonable conversation with them to explain the wording and suggest if they aren't happy that they should have the contract looked over by a solicitor. I'd explain in a very friendly and reasonable way that I'm giving them a time limit to do this or you will proceed with another tenant.

Really doesn't sound like a nightmare to me...