Precontractual "tenant offer letter" : what and why? I'm not signing it

SouthLondonUser

I have made an offer to rent a property and paid the holding deposit.
The offer has been accepted.
The agency, a large one with a nationwide presence, has now sent me a "tenant offer letter" which they want me to sign. It lists the key conditions (price, term, notice period, some additional stuff we have agreed) but is 1.5 pages only. It's not a full contract - the full contract will follow. It is however specified clearly that this is a binding agreement with the landlord to rent the property etc etc.

What is this tenant offer letter? I had never heard of it before. Is it common?

I am refusing to sign it because I want to review and sign the whole contract. I fail to see the point of signing a kind of "pre-contract" after having already paid the holding deposit.

On a theoretical level, it seems just conceptually wrong. I cannot think of a single instance in a business context where someone would sign a binding document but the full contract will follow later. I appreciate most consumers are idiots who don't even read what they sign, but, still...

On a practical level, paranoid me thinks the full contract might have some nasty surprises not discussed so far. Me is paranoid because I have had bad experiences in 5 out of my last 6 properties I rented!

Thoughts?

Have you come across this tenant offer letter?

martinthebandit

I think you get it and sign it then it's sent to the landlord for him to agree and sign, then the contract (which will include the '........some additional stuff we have agreed') will be drawn up.

Bottom line, if you refuse to sign you won't be renting the property or receive your holding deposit back.

SouthLondonUser

Why not sign the whole contract as I have always done until now?
What advantages do the landlords or the agent have in doing this thing in two steps?

PS should they refuse to return my holding deposit I will sue them. I committed to renting the property, which I want to do. I never committed to this unreasonae thing in two steps.

eddddy

In your position, to try to avoid derailing things, I would just write the words 'Subject to Contract' on the letter before signing it.

In general, 'Subject to Contract' is taken to mean (by a court etc), that you do not intend to create a binding contract, at this stage - and either party can walk away without penalty.

beckysheffield

Just write an email to the letting agent asking what is the letter for and that!!!8217;s you!!!8217;ve had bad experiences in the past and don!!!8217;t know why you are having to sign two contracts.

Surely you should be signing a contract soon? If the property taken of the market?

System

If it's a popular location then they'll just get someone else to sign it, if you start out looking like an awkward tenant they'll be more awkward than you ime

SouthLondonUser

So reading before signing and daring ask what the point of this contract without all the clauses is means I am "awkward"? What's your definition of awkward, exactly? Using one's brain and not passively swallowing everything = awkward?

Is this common practice? Have you gone through it, too? Would you passively accept it if you were the tenant?

Of course I understand the landlord can still walk away if he considers me "difficult", but he'd still have to give me back my holding deposit. Plus vetting is a two-way thing: I'd consider as weird and potentially troublesome any landlord that insists on this weird two-way contract, and I'd very much not want to rent from them. Too many dishonest loonies ended up being my landlord in the past.

franklee

I've not heard of this before either.

I'd ask to see a draft of the full contract. You cannot sign a binding agreement if you do not know what it will be. If the draft contract looks OK you can sign the "tenant offer letter" adding a note it's providing the real contract is the same as the draft.

However does the letter have the tenancy start date? If not then they could make you wait ages and you would be stuck.

Given the letter is binding on you I'd want to know when is it binding on the landlord. You do not want to be in a position where you are tied in but he isn't.

If you query any of this I would suggest using email to retain proof. Reassurances from the agent over the phone can so easily be "forgotten" when the promises become inconvenient.

kinger101

Sounds like letting agents being halfwits. A binding agreement to let the property is a contract. What would happen if you signed that, but not the tenancy agreement. You cannot be said to be entering the subsequent "tenancy agreement" without having seen it because there is no certainty of terms.

System

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

So reading before signing and daring ask what the point of this contract without all the clauses is means I am "awkward"? What's your definition of awkward, exactly? Using one's brain and not passively swallowing everything = awkward?

Is this common practice? Have you gone through it, too? Would you passively accept it if you were the tenant?

Of course I understand the landlord can still walk away if he considers me "difficult", but he'd still have to give me back my holding deposit. Plus vetting is a two-way thing: I'd consider as weird and potentially troublesome any landlord that insists on this weird two-way contract, and I'd very much not want to rent from them. Too many dishonest loonies ended up being my landlord in the past.

That's not at all what I'm saying, it's correct to do your due diligence but in my experience if you refuse to sign what an agent wants you to then someone else will be offered the property. It's not right but it's the reality of the situation in a competitive market

martinthebandit

http://www.jacstrattons.com/en/lettings/to_rent/lettings_procedures.aspx

As I've said your options are sign it and progress or not sign it and loose the rental place and your holding deposit.