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

kinger101

martinthebandit wrote: »

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.

OP isn't withdrawing. They simply want a detailed tenancy agreement rather than a vague and dubious contract. In the interests of both landlord and tenant.

System

kinger101 wrote: »

OP isn't withdrawing. They simply want a detailed tenancy agreement rather than a vague and dubious contract. In the interests of both landlord and tenant.

The offer letter isn't in place of a formal tenancy agreement it's the first step which outlines the basic terms which will form the tenancy agreement, it's binding in that if the terms are satisfied then the tenancy agreement will be drawn up based on the offer, if there isn't an agreement on the basic terms the landlord won't progress to a formal tenancy agreement, presumably the letter details that it will be a standard agreement and any additional clauses that the landlord wants.

kinger101

the_r_sole wrote: »

The offer letter isn't in place of a formal tenancy agreement it's the first step which outlines the basic terms which will form the tenancy agreement, it's binding in that if the terms are satisfied then the tenancy agreement will be drawn up based on the offer, if there isn't an agreement on the basic terms the landlord won't progress to a formal tenancy agreement, presumably the letter details that it will be a standard agreement and any additional clauses that the landlord wants.

In which case, likely to be regarded unenforceable due to being unfair. But my original point stands that tenant cannot agree to sign a contract which they have not seen. It's complete twaddle.

Put it this way.

Tenant refuses to sign pre-contract nonsense.
Landlord refuses the let to them.
Tenant gets holding deposit back because the decision not to let was the LL's

SouthLondonUser

@kinger101, if I understand your link correctly, the offer letter seems to be part of the holding deposit and seems something the tenant sends. Ie, I tenant, want to rent the property on this key terms ; if you don't agree to them, I will get my holding deposit back.

My case is different. I had already made my key terms explicit in writing BEFORE paying the holding deposit (because I trust drug lords more than I trust estate agents). So, again, I fail to see the point of an offer letter put together by the agent AFTER I have already paid the holding deposit and AFTER I have already put my key terms in writing and made the holding deposit subject to those.

After all, the clue is in the name: the offer letter is something the tenant should send when he makes an offer!

Oh, and if I try to steal my deposit on the basis that I refuse to sign this stupid "letter", I'd really like to see how they can motivate it with the property ombudsman (or the courts if it comes to that).

SouthLondonUser

If *they try to steal

System

kinger101 wrote: »

In which case, likely to be regarded unenforceable due to being unfair. But my original point stands that tenant cannot agree to sign a contract which they have not seen. It's complete twaddle.

Put it this way.

Tenant refuses to sign pre-contract nonsense.
Landlord refuses the let to them.
Tenant gets holding deposit back because the decision not to let was the LL's

It's clear you don't understand the purpose of this, the landlord won't prepare a formal tenancy agreement for the let because they want to make sure the things like rent/duration etc etc are agreed in principle before doing so, it's just part of the process, and it works both ways for example if the tenant wanted to keep pets or something you would agree this in principle before a formal tenancy agreement is prepared.
The landlord isn't going to offer a formal contract for signing without the principles being established, if the op doesn't want to do it that way then they don't have any choice but to look for a different property with a different agent

kinger101

the_r_sole wrote: »

It's clear you don't understand the purpose of this, the landlord won't prepare a formal tenancy agreement for the let because they want to make sure the things like rent/duration etc etc are agreed in principle before doing so, it's just part of the process, and it works both ways for example if the tenant wanted to keep pets or something you would agree this in principle before a formal tenancy agreement is prepared.
The landlord isn't going to offer a formal contract for signing without the principles being established, if the op doesn't want to do it that way then they don't have any choice but to look for a different property with a different agent

Last time a rented a property, these potential differences were resolved with the modern invention of telephony rather than quills, papyrus and ink.

It has no useful purpose, other than potentially eroding OP's right to reclaim a holding deposit. It's just letting agents being scum.

kinger101

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@kinger101, if I understand your link correctly, the offer letter seems to be part of the holding deposit and seems something the tenant sends. Ie, I tenant, want to rent the property on this key terms ; if you don't agree to them, I will get my holding deposit back.

My case is different. I had already made my key terms explicit in writing BEFORE paying the holding deposit (because I trust drug lords more than I trust estate agents). So, again, I fail to see the point of an offer letter put together by the agent AFTER I have already paid the holding deposit and AFTER I have already put my key terms in writing and made the holding deposit subject to those.

After all, the clue is in the name: the offer letter is something the tenant should send when he makes an offer!

Oh, and if I try to steal my deposit on the basis that I refuse to sign this stupid "letter", I'd really like to see how they can motivate it with the property ombudsman (or the courts if it comes to that).

It's not my link, but I understand you're frustration. It all seems very underhand. They can just show you the contract. Following Eddy's suggestion seems the least confrontational way forward.

System

kinger101 wrote: »

Last time a rented a property, these potential differences were resolved with the modern invention of telephony rather than quills, papyrus and ink.

It has no useful purpose, other than potentially eroding OP's right to reclaim a holding deposit. It's just letting agents being scum.

Yeah it's always a bad idea to have a written record of what terms you want in a contract, especially when dealing through a third party...:money:

SouthLondonUser

In 99% of the cases, the landlord doesn't prepare a contract from scratch, but starts from a template provided by the agent, and maybe makes a few modifications. It's almost a one off, because the contract will not need to be radically altered for another tenant - maybe a few changes here and there, but not radically altered.

Also, like I said, I had already made my key terms explicit in writing before paying the holding deposit.

Contracts are meant to be negotiated. If a landlord feels his contract is set in stone and he is not open to negotiating not even the smallest clause, he can keep his beautiful property to himself because I hear alarm bells ringing and the odds it's an unreasonable landlord are too high.

@the_r_sole, do you ever negotiate business contracts for work? I'd guess not. If you did, you'd appreciate that the concept of a binding pre-contract, without having agreed all the terms, is total madness.