Letting agent refusing to let me have a landlord signed copy

Guest101

cannalucente wrote: »

Thanks Guest101. I see what you mean.
If you were in my shoes, what would you do should anything like this happen? Or what could I do to protect me from such eventuality (except of extending my current tenancy).

Thanks.

Max

Well if it happens obviously you need to find somewhere else to live - since they seem to be refunding you the amount you've paid, the financials wont be a problem.


So the reasonably mitigated loss would be a hotel for a few nights. Which you can then take the landlord to court for.


(it is very unlikely to happen)

cannalucente

Thanks a lot Guest101, I feel reassured :-) I agree it is quite unlikely to happen. It is that the idea of being homeless (even if for a short while) makes the emotions take over on the brain.

Thanks again.

Max

saajan_12

cannalucente wrote: »

in section 1.1 it reads:

"Insert here, (only after this agreement has been signed by, or on behalf of, both parties) the binding DATE of this contract"- that's bizarre that it would be entered after signing, as that forms part of the contract. By entering it after,
what if you don't agree on a binding date? Would be

At the moment this is blank as the letting agent is still processing the contract.
..
@saajan_12: this does not look to me as a sample contract, I have received it via docusign and I have been asked to sign it (and to pay deposit etc.).
- Apologies, I was talking more generally which is bad form. In general, the LL sending you an unsigned contract and you signing it doesn't necessarily mean they agree to the terms.
However in your case, them asking you to sign and other email correspondence may indicate their agreement to the terms and you specifically renting it.


What I do not understand is why the LL can pull out without having to refund me any damages, whereas I would lose my deposit. I have explicitly asked this question to the letting agent "What happens if the day of the move and I am there with my stuff and the LL tells me that they have changed their mind?" and they said "This is quite uncommon but could happen. They would refund what you have paid and that's it". - This is simply false. Whatever date the agreement is binding on, it must bind both or neither of you. If it is not binding on the LL, then it is also not binding on you and you can get (sue for) your deposit + damages e.g. hotel costs.


This sounds quite scary to me. Can I not really claim damages should this be happening? How can only one of the two parties be bound to the contract and the other is not?

Please let me know if there is something that I should specifically check in the contract.

Thanks again to everyone for helping me.

Max

There's two issues:
1)Can the contract be only binding on you and not the LL? No. If it isn't binding on either of you then either can pull out and you get your deposit back with no further damages paid. If it is binding on both of you then if LL pulls out, you get deposit + reasonable damages e.g. hotel. If you pull out,
LL gets his reasonable damages e.g. reletting fees + rent until it's relet.

2) Is the agreeement binding on the LL without them signing it as they presented the terms? I don't think them presenting the terms is enough, as it COULD be a sample contract, but this doesn't sound the case for you as they have requested payment and asked you to sign. However having a signed contract would be cleaner, as playing devil's advocate, what if they meant it was for you to pre-sign while they decide.

G_M

cannalucente wrote: »

"Insert here, (only after this agreement has been signed by, or on behalf
of, both parties) the binding DATE of this contract"

At the moment this is blank as the letting agent is still processing the contract.

So this blank date relates to the contract date? ie the date when the contract becomes binding on both parties (once they have both signed).

Presumably somewhere else there is a tenancy start date specified? ie the date you have both agreed under the contract that the tenancy will commence.

My interpretation is that

* the tenat has signed and the LL/agent holds that contract signed by the tenant.
* at any point in time, the LL can sign, and insert and a date, and the contract will become binding.
* The tenant therefore cannot walk away as the LL could then sign
* but the LL is not commited yet so he can walk away

In the OP's shoes, I would be unhappy with this. I'd be sitting in the agent's office insisting on

1) an agreed tenancy start date being inserted if not already there
2) a LL or agent signature and
3) a contract date (today's date)

This means both sides are committed and could claim damages if the other side withdrew.

baldelectrician

From my point- an agent is acting as the landlord (at their behest) so they enter into contracts etc on the landlords behalf.


It may be a moot point but if an agent agrees a contract with a tenant then it will be binding on the landlord (unless the agent has no authority at all and the LL has not engaged the agents services)

G_M

baldelectrician wrote: »

From my point- an agent is acting as the landlord (at their behest) so they enter into contracts etc on the landlords behalf.


It may be a moot point but if an agent agrees a contract with a tenant then it will be binding on the landlord (unless the agent has no authority at all and the LL has not engaged the agents services)

That is not in dispute. Yes - of course the agent is acting as the landlord in legal terms.

At issue here is your point "if an agent agrees a contract...". We are debating whether or not that has happened yet if the agent (or of course the landlord) has not signed the contract.

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

That is not in dispute. Yes - of course the agent is acting as the landlord in legal terms.

At issue here is your point "if an agent agrees a contract...". We are debating whether or not that has happened yet if the agent (or of course the landlord) has not signed the contract.

They have accepted payment though.


I know we cant really compare a simple transaction with a complex one, but the principles are similar.


For example- if I pick an item in the shop and hand over money, it becomes mine, I don't need a receipt to legally become the owner.


Sure if there is a contract which is signed but no money changes hands, it could be argued that it is a administrative task, time saving down the line should the LL accept (though I think that would need to be very clear to the perspective tenant)


But if they accept payment, not just a deposit, but actual rent money, I really cant see that argument holding any weight.


I suppose it's like many things in that other circumstances are taken into consideration.


I'm not suggesting that a tenant can just sign a sample agreement and consider it binding; but if the intention is to create a contract a signature isn't required, simply acceptance, whether that be verbal or by accepting payment.

cannalucente

G_M wrote: »

So this blank date relates to the contract date? ie the date when the contract becomes binding on both parties (once they have both signed).

Presumably somewhere else there is a tenancy start date specified? ie the date you have both agreed under the contract that the tenancy will commence.

Hi G_M,

thanks for your reply. Yes, tenancy start and end dates are mentioned somewhere else in the contract.

G_M wrote: »

In the OP's shoes, I would be unhappy with this. I'd be sitting in the agent's office insisting on

1) an agreed tenancy start date being inserted if not already there
2) a LL or agent signature and
3) a contract date (today's date)

This means both sides are committed and could claim damages if the other side withdrew.

Have tried that but they said no, you need to accept this, it always works like this. Now, if I had a friend who was a solicitor here in the UK, I would have asked him to give them a call. As I do not have one, I am wondering whether there is any point in escalating at this stage or just be prepared to do it should things not turn in the right direction.

What I know for a fact is that if now they tell me they pull out I will not be in an easy position as I would need to find another suitable place in less than a month.

Max

Guest101

cannalucente wrote: »

Hi G_M,

thanks for your reply. Yes, tenancy start and end dates are mentioned somewhere else in the contract.



Have tried that but they said no, you need to accept this, it always works like this. Now, if I had a friend who was a solicitor here in the UK, I would have asked him to give them a call. As I do not have one, I am wondering whether there is any point in escalating at this stage or just be prepared to do it should things not turn in the right direction.

What I know for a fact is that if now they tell me they pull out I will not be in an easy position as I would need to find another suitable place in less than a month.

Max

I'd suggest you wait and see what happens. a solicitor wont help at this stage as you have no basis for legal action

cannalucente

Guest101 wrote: »

I'd suggest you wait and see what happens. a solicitor wont help at this stage as you have no basis for legal action

Yes, it makes sense :-) Thanks again.

Max