Agency refusing to send countersigned rental contract before full payment: is it normal?

SouthLondonUser

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Housing law isn't like the contracts you deal with. Tenancies can only be ended by the tenant or a court, not the landlord. It could take the landlord months to get a court to evict a non paying tenant out the property.

I genuinely fail to understand. The tenancy is to start in about 5 weeks. Obviously they will not give me the keys before I have paid and my payment has cleared. So, what is the risk for them? I am not asking for the keys before payment, I am asking for a countersigned copy of the contract.

I'll admit I am not an expert in residential real estate law and landlord/tenant disputes, so I'd appreciate it if someone who knows more than me could enlighten me. What is the risk for them? That I break in the property by breaking a class? If I were such a lowlife I could do this now with no need for a contract! I really do not understand.

SouthLondonUser

Lorian wrote: »

If they used DocuSign if you go back and look you may well find the landlord has now signed it too and you can download a PDF of the completed document.

Good suggestion - I hadn't thought of that! I don't think it's docusign (or if it it's been rebranded). I went back to it; it tells me the landlord has signed, but the only PDF it lets me download is the text without the signatures.

davidmcn wrote: »

But what's the problem with the contract being signed in advance of the keys/money changing hands?

Exactly!

Pixie5740

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I genuinely fail to understand. The tenancy is to start in about 5 weeks. Obviously they will not give me the keys before I have paid and my payment has cleared. So, what is the risk for them? I am not asking for the keys before payment, I am asking for a countersigned copy of the contract.

I'll admit I am not an expert in residential real estate law and landlord/tenant disputes, so I'd appreciate it if someone who knows more than me could enlighten me. What is the risk for them? That I break in the property by breaking a class? If I were such a lowlife I could do this now with no need for a contract! I really do not understand.

Really? You don't see the difference between giving someone a contract and the legal right to be in a property and breaking and entering?

The risk for the landlord is that once (s)he signs there is a legally binding contract. What will the landlord do if the current occupants are supposed to move out but don't or some urgent repair crops up between now and your moving in date that would delay or completely prevent you from moving in?

The upshot is that you can argue the toss with a bunch of strangers on the internet but if the LL/LA won't give you a countersigned copy of the tenancy agreement before you make full payment then they won't do it.

SouthLondonUser

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Really? You don't see the difference between giving someone a contract and the legal right to be in a property and breaking and entering?

How does this legal right arise? Say he gives me the contract then I don't pay. I am not a legal scholar, so I am not even sure if, in this circumstance (contract but no payment) I even have the right to be in the property. He doesn't give me the keys. How would I enforce this theoretical right to be in the property? By going to a judge and saying: your honour, I have the right to the keys even though I have never paid the rent? By suing him because he didn't give me the keys even though I had never paid?

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The risk for the landlord is that once (s)he signs there is a legally binding contract. What will the landlord do if the current occupants are supposed to move out but don't or some urgent repair crops up between now and your moving in date that would delay or completely prevent you from moving in?

Maybe I'm being thick, but I still do not understand. How are these points relevant? I was trying to understand what's the worst that could happen to the landlord if he gives me the contract then I don't pay. I don't see how the paragraph above answers this question.

Also, in this specific case, the property is now empty - no occupants as of today.

Ah, one more thing: if the agent is telling the truth, the landlord HAS signed but the agent will only give me the executed copy AFTER payment.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The upshot is that you can argue the toss with a bunch of strangers on the internet but if the LL/LA won't give you a countersigned copy of the tenancy agreement before you make full payment then they won't do it.

Of course. the question was not: help me convince the agent.
The question was: do they have a point? If so, what is it, because I can't see it?

mitch2509

With a tenancy agreement you can claim housing benefit, you may make a claim for this benefit and then not bother with actually renting the property. Before you say you won't be claiming they don't know you won't be claiming.

As it's a problem for you not having the contract, go in to the agents on the day, pay and collect your keys and contract.

SouthLondonUser

mitch2509 wrote: »

With a tenancy agreement you can claim housing benefit, you may make a claim for this benefit and then not bother with actually renting the property. Before you say you won't be claiming they don't know you won't be claiming.

As it's a problem for you not having the contract, go in to the agents on the day, pay and collect your keys and contract.

Not applicable in this case: I am lucky enough that my financial situation, thoroughly assessed and verified by the tenant, makes me ineligible for any kind of housing benefit.

Regardless, even if I were eligible for housing benefit, it would be me committing a fraud against HMRC / HM Treasury. What's the landlord's risk in all of that?

if I receive the contract, never pay then fraudulently claim benefits, what damage have I caused to the landlord? Again, no payment, no keys, so I still do not understand.

mitch2509

You are looking at it specifically from your own situation, why not ask them the reason they won't let you have it?

When you purchase a house you exchange contracts about a week or so before but you don't get a copy until the money has been transferred. The contracts stay with a solicitor.

I'm really not sure what your issue is and why you want them but if you don't like the fact you can't have them before, pull out and find another property.

davidmcn

mitch2509 wrote: »

You are looking at it specifically from your own situation, why not ask them the reason they won't let you have it?

According to the OP they were asked, and couldn't come up with a convincing reason.

When you purchase a house you exchange contracts about a week or so before but you don't get a copy until the money has been transferred. The contracts stay with a solicitor.

No, the contracts are exchanged at exchange of contracts (there is a clue in the name!), even though in practice they will usually be in your solicitor's file rather than in your hands. The parties are then bound to hand over money / keys on the completion date, with penalties which apply if they fail to do so. And commercial leases tend to be dealt with in a similar manner. But it's all a bit of a mess with residential leases, with the risks slanted against the tenant.

mitch2509

No, the contracts are exchanged at exchange of contracts (there is a clue in the name!), even though in practice they will usually be in your solicitor's file rather than in your hands. The parties are then bound to hand over money / keys on the completion date, with penalties which apply if they fail to do so. And commercial leases tend to be dealt with in a similar manner. But it's all a bit of a mess with residential leases, with the risks slanted against the tenant.[/QUOTE]

How is that not what I said? Minus the sarcasm!

I'm currently a tenant, I would say the landlord carries the most risk at least financially. They could be thousands down on rent and have a wrecked house. The worst that could happen to me is being issued with a section 21 and/or loose my deposit.

SouthLondonUser

mitch2509 wrote: »

I'm currently a tenant, I would say the landlord carries the most risk at least financially. They could be thousands down on rent and have a wrecked house. The worst that could happen to me is being issued with a section 21 and/or loose my deposit.

Mitch, this is irrelevant; the question has never been if a dishonest landlord can cause more damage to a honest tenant or viceversa.

My question was: what risks does the landlord expose himself to if he sends me a signed copy of the contract before I make my payment? This question remains unanswered.

In commercial transactions, both parties are assisted by lawyers, and payments and contracts go through lawyers. The agent tried to compare himself to a lawyer, but that's ludicrous, if it were only because estate agencies are unregulated (voluntarily signing up to an Ombudsman which cannot shut them down the way a lawyer would be disbarred doesn't mean much). Not to mention that the agent works for the landlord, while I don't have any kind of representative.