not signed contract but they want keep deposit?

flashgordon666

Hi,
I went to rent a flat on Monday, after I signed at the agency they said there was no utilities connected, so when I heard that I said I don't want the flat, an felt let down by the agency. They didn't want to return rent and deposit. So they said they would do a new contract a week later with the utilities connected.

I spoke to my mate who rents out property and said that is illegal, the flat should be habitable upon signing.

So I went to the agency an asked for the original contract which they wouldn't give me (to check if the contract says if the utilities where connected), an I told them its against the law to rent a flat that's inhabitable, so after they spoke to there legal team, she said the original contract is now invalid, an I can have the rent back but not the deposit, as this was being moved to the new contract which is for the same flat but with everything connected.

So my question is, if I don't sign the new contract should I get my deposit back, my mate says I should be entitled to it.

appreciate your help

sheff6107

They've breached the original contract and remedy under the law is to put the injured party in the same position as if the breach had not occurred. So he is entitled to the deposit and to walk away.

G_M

Which law requires a property to be habitable upon signing of the contract?

And in what way was the property uninhabitable?

flashgordon666

tenant act 1985 chapter 70 point 8.1

the utilities where not connected

AdrianC

flashgordon666 wrote: »

the utilities where not connected

Physically not connected?
Or just switched off?

If they're just switched off, then reconnection is almost trivial, and simply requires somebody's name on the bill. The landlord can do that, before you transfer the bills into your name. Or, for simplicity, it can be done straight into your name.

TBagpuss

flashgordon666 wrote: »

Hi,
I went to rent a flat on Monday, after I signed at the agency they said there was no utilities connected, so when I heard that I said I don't want the flat, an felt let down by the agency. They didn't want to return rent and deposit. So they said they would do a new contract a week later with the utilities connected.

I spoke to my mate who rents out property and said that is illegal, the flat should be habitable upon signing.

So I went to the agency an asked for the original contract which they wouldn't give me (to check if the contract says if the utilities where connected), an I told them its against the law to rent a flat that's inhabitable, so after they spoke to there legal team, she said the original contract is now invalid, an I can have the rent back but not the deposit, as this was being moved to the new contract which is for the same flat but with everything connected.

So my question is, if I don't sign the new contract should I get my deposit back, my mate says I should be entitled to it.

appreciate your help

Have you told the agency that you no longer want the flat? It sounds as though they have simply said that they will hold the deposit for the new contract you are signing in a week. If you tell them you don't wnat the new cotnract, then they should give that back to you. If you do still want the flat, then you can still insist that they give the deposit back and the you can return it to them in a few dayswhen you sign the new contract, but it does seem like rather a lot of hassle for a few days.

Guest101

it depends what this deposit was for.


Holding deposit or tenancy deposit (or security or damage deposit or whatever they want to call it)

G_M

Which law requires a property to be habitable upon signing of the contract?

And in what way was the property uninhabitable?

flashgordon666 wrote: »

tenant act 1985 chapter 70 point 8.1

the utilities where not connected

I'm guessing you mean the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985? If not, please provide a link.

The Act says:

"at the commencement of the tenancy," which is not the same as upon signing the contract.

It also does not mention utilities. S10 says:

In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a house is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters—

repair,

stability,

freedom from damp,

internal arrangement,

natural lighting,

ventilation,

water supply,

drainage and sanitary conveniences,

facilities for preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water;

and the house shall be regarded as unfit for human habitation if, and only if, it is so far defective in one or more of those matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.

"Utilities" is generally understood to mean phone (& broadband nowadays), gas, electricity and water.

To claim a lack of phone makes a property uninhabitable is clearly laughable. Many properties don't have gas (I don't), and whilst electricity is the norm nowadays,lack of it does not make a property uninhabitable.

Water is the only utility required for a property to be habitable, so if that is not connecetd when the tenancy starts the property would be uninhabitable.

mattk_180

Would also suggest you do your own research or seek professional advice before making such bold statements to the agency.


Nobody will take you seriously when you start a sentence with "my mate said". Unless this mate is trained in law or gives you examples/evidence of what he is saying, I wouldn't take anything he says too literal.

saajan_12

Were you supposed to move in the same day as signing the contract?

I would have thought the property would need to be habitable throughout your tenancy i.e. from move in, regardless of when the contract is signed. Indeed if you sign early (e.g. for student lets) the property may not be habitable while empty as it might be undergoing serious renovation to get it ready for you!