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

eilidhcatriona

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Btw, it seems my landlord has asked the same question on landlordzone:
https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1035851-sending-the-contract-to-the-tenant-before-he-pays-the-first-month
Interestingly, no one has mentioned that receiving the contract could allow me to take up occupation, and one poster even said the agents are being unreasonable!

Your landlord...or you? Posting style is identical.

I don’t think I ever had a fully signed rental contract before keys. Never bothered me - receipts for any payments give you back up if it goes south.

SouthLondonUser

Yes, I have enough spare time to go create fake accounts on the Internet. I run a Russian troll farm, did I not mention that?

takman

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Btw, it seems my landlord has asked the same question on landlordzone:
https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1035851-sending-the-contract-to-the-tenant-before-he-pays-the-first-month

Link wrote:

The tenant is furious, screams and shouts it's unacceptable, and has pointed out that he doesn't see what the risk for me would be, since of course I wouldn't give him the keys before the payment clears.

Interestingly, no one has mentioned that receiving the contract could allow me to take up occupation, and one poster even said the agents are being unreasonable!

So your furious about it and were screaming and shouting :rotfl: what an overreaction; do you have some kind of anger issues?

The reason they won't give you the contract before you pay is probably because they don't know what their legal position is and they don't know if the contract covers them if you don't pay. So they are playing it safe and want to do it in a specific way so they don't put the landlord at risk.
No matter what evidence you show them I doubt they will change what they do and they will not want to pay out to get legal advice.

But if you hate the way lettings agents operate and have alot of bad experiences with them, have you considered buying a property instead? Or do you move around a lot ?

bowlhead99

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

eilidhcatriona wrote: »

Your landlord...or you? Posting style is identical.

Yes, I have enough spare time to go create fake accounts on the Internet. I run a Russian troll farm, did I not mention that?

Someone created the new account on Landlordzone to make their first thread there, three hours after making the thread here, to talk about the exact same scenario pretending to be from the landlord's perspective - writing in the same style and annoying the longstanding forum members there by rejecting every answer as incomplete and unsatisfactory as you are doing here. The idea that person is *not* you, is laugable.


It's understandable that you want to get as many perspectives as possible about your issue so have created an account to fake up the same story from the other side of the fence.

Over here, we tell you that the agency want to play safe by not giving you a signed contract until you have paid the deposit and up front rent, in case you assert your rights under the contract despite non-payment and it takes ages to get rid of you through the legal process. We note that you could get a locksmith to change the locks for you on the basis of your ID and tenancy agreement.

Over there, senior member JK0 (nine years, eleven thousand posts) noted:

I have no problem with tenant seeing contract. Just he won't be seeing one signed by me before he coughs up.

There would be no need to kick the door down. He could just call a locksmith, and show him the agreement to effect entry. The police wouldn't help you then either.

Old Landlordzone threads are full of stories of landlords who issued a tenancy agreement, but never got a penny. Don't be one of them.

But rather than just accepting these common sense, consistent views across the two forums, you want to spend your time arguing that you could perhaps get a locksmith to change the lock by faking a contract and speculating that the tenant having an actual siged contract in his hand without having made any payments is maybe not in a stronger position than someone who had forged a contract without having made any payments.

Clearly that's not the case, and at landlordzone, member JK0 ended up being so exasperated with your argumentative tone toward his downright sensible answers, that he told you to just go ahead as he no longer cares. It's not hard to imagine people here feeling the same way. One thing that can be said is: if by some surprising coincidence the landlordzone poster is really not you, and is really your prospective landlord - then you should get on very well once you get to know each other because your personalities are a match made in heaven.

We get it - you don't like the way the landlord and agent want to work. Your choice is to accept the way they want to work, or move on. I know you don't want to hear that, as you told Thrugelmir he should not post if he's only going to remind you of the choice you have to make. As you also said to Thrug, you do not even want assistance in convincing the agent to change their mind through persuasive argument. You just want to know if they have a sensible point and basis for their policy. We have explained that they do.

You want to know that what we say is supported by legal foundation and not just heresay. But you seem like the sort of person who would get a free one on one consultation with a legal professional who pulled out all the case law and still demand more, moaning that it wasn't what you wanted to hear, even though they were doing a favour. Nobody here sees the value in walking you through every clause of the housing act and all relevant case law and commenting on every single way a real-life situation could possibly shake out. To do that exhaustively would require masses of prose and you are likely to retort that you don't feel most of it is relevant.

When people tried to help earlier you reiterated that all you wanted to konw was: does the agent have a point. Perhaps that could be expanded to: is there *some* reason why they should stick to a business policy whose basis was to protect the landlord, and does that policy have any real basis in commercial good sense. And the answer is yes.

Quite apart from the fact that it makes a lot of sense for a business to stick to one set of policies and procedures rather than adjusting it on the fly for tenants who prefer something different, example scenarios have been given that anyone with common sense can understand that a landlord would wish to avoid. Like you taking up occupation with a signed contract, having never actually paid deposit or rent and never intending to, while holding a tenancy contract that gives you Housing Act protections even if rent is unpaid.

iammumtoone

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

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.

I don't know about housing law but my guess it something like the following.

You then have a legal document to live at the house

You don't make any payment but break into the house and change the locks.

You have broken the law by breaking in but once you are in you are legally allowed to stay (as you have a proper signed contract - not a faked one).

It is now the LL responsibly to get you out, yes this is achievable as you haven't paid any rent BUT it will involve the LL issuing the correct papers and going to court - all of which will take time whilst you are living rent free.

Of course you could still pay deposit and first months rent and not pay anymore, the LL would have to follow the same process but at least they would have gotten some money out of you this way.

iammumtoone

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

a) a stranger breaks into the property now (which I or anyone could do now!), and
b) I receive the contract, don't pay, and break into the property?

Lots as only one of them has a legal right to be there ie the one with the contract.

The ones without the contract straight to court, the LL will win as no questioning they have no right to be there.

The ones with the contract if they get a very kind judge and persuade them that they have nowhere else to live are very sorry for the way they acted and will pay up everything in the next two weeks, the judge might let them stay, they don't pay LL has to go through the whole process again. Unlikely yes but if you were a LL would you take that risk?

I think you are overthinking things, as I said I have no legal knowledge but even I can see why a LL wouldn't release the right for a tenant to live there without payment.

SouthLondonUser

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Over there, senior member JK0 (nine years, eleven thousand posts) [...] ended up being so exasperated with your argumentative tone toward his downright sensible answers, that he told you to just go ahead as he no longer cares.

@bowlhead99, thank you for taking the time to post such a long reply.

This is not a subjective, what-would-you-do type of question. It was much more factual; it was about what's the worst that can happen, how likely it is, what the law says about it. Ever heard the expression that billions of flies can't be wrong? Just because many people say something doesn't make it true, especially if they can't elaborate.

You seem to think I'm the kind of person who insists till he gets the answer he likes. Not quite. I'm the kind of person who insists till he gets an answer backed up by a modicum of evidence. If hundreds of people tell you that vaccines cause autism, but can't answer when you ask them where the proof is, do you believe them because you're in the minority?

Btw, since you give so much weight to what the forum consensus is, it's odd you forgot that:

• one senior memeber said the agents are being stupid because tehre is no reason not to receive a contract
• another senior member said it's perfectly reasonable to expect a copy of the contract before transferring over a large sum of money
• another senior member said he doesn't see an issue, and that, practically, the risk is no different from that of the tenant moving in and then not making the 2nd payment

vs the one senior member you quoted.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

We get it - you don't like the way the landlord and agent want to work. Your choice is to accept the way they want to work, or move on. I know you don't want to hear that, as you told Thrugelmir he should not post if he's only going to remind you of the choice you have to make.

It's not that I don't want to hear that, it's that being reminded of a self-evident fact, of which I am very well aware, does not answer the question and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Different concept.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

You want to know that what we say is supported by legal foundation and not just heresay. But you seem like the sort of person who would get a free one on one consultation with a legal professional who pulled out all the case law and still demand more,

Nope. See above. For reference, on other matters, I have in the past paid for legal advice because all the answers I was hearing from people who should have known better (not strangers on a forum) didn't sound convincing; oh, and in both cases the answer provided by the legal expert were NOT what I would have liked, but at least they were the correct ones!

Why am I paranoid? Because I have been screwed over by 5 of the last 6 landlords and agents I dealt with:

• one stole my deposit and I had to sue him through the small money claim court to get the money back (before deposit protection)
• another took 3 months to return my deposit and asked for a fee 3x higher than was in the contract to provide a reference to the new landlord
• another claimed my contract entitled them to certain fees and it wasn't true; they even quotes a clause I had NOT signed! That's one of the key reasons why I don't like paying before having a countersigned contract
• another one provided a patently false inventory check in, missing out what would have been thousands of pounds worth of damage (eg more than 20 nails in the walls missed in the inventory)
• another one refused to fix the radiators (we had 13C in the kitchen in the winter) and only did something when I threatened legal action

Oh, and my friends' experiences aren't much better.

Why do I rent, then? Well, let's just say that there are a number of reasons which make renting the least worst choice in my specific moment in my specific circumstances.

SouthLondonUser

iammumtoone wrote: »

You have broken the law by breaking in but once you are in you are legally allowed to stay (as you have a proper signed contract - not a faked one).

It is now the LL responsibly to get you out, yes this is achievable as you haven't paid any rent BUT it will involve the LL issuing the correct papers and going to court - all of which will take time whilst you are living rent free.

Yes, that's the only thing which would make a modicum of sense to me. However, it's one thing to hear that non-legal experts, like your or I, think that's the case, and quite another to hear it confirmed from someone with legal knowledge (which has not happened).

Anyway, if that's the reason, it would be super-easy to address by simply making the payment a condition precedent: the contract doesn't become valid and binding till the payment clears. In that case the tenant who breaks in would have no contract and would be thrown out just like any squatter. But of course that would be too much trouble for estate agents used to a market in which tenants have no bargaining power and must swallow whatever condition is forced down their throat.

Given the kind of despicable scumbags I have had to deal with, the odds of the landlord changing some clauses in the contract after signing are not lower than those of a tenant breaking in.

Pixie5740

I think you need to educate yourself on how and why an Assured Shorthold Tenancy can be ended. The landlord can't just put clauses in the tenancy to make the contract null and void under certain circumstances because the landlord cannot end the tenancy as has already been explained to you. Even a tenant in arrears takes months to legally evict through the courts.

You might also find this useful if about rent being due even if there's a fire.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/housing_help_after_a_fire

Ultimately if you want legal advice on the matter you'll need to stick your hand in your pocket and pay for it preferably from a solicitor who specialises in housing law.

SouthLondonUser

Pixie, I am not talking about making the contract null and void. I am talking about a condition precedent, i.e. the contract does not become binding till the condition is met, which is a different concept to making the contract void. You talk about making the contract void. I talk about making it so that the contract does not start and become binding till a condition is met. Two very different concepts.

For example, this template of AST does list a set of conditions precedent, the last one of which is exactly what I have been talking about. And no, I did not just set up that website to prove my point

https://www.rentinc.co.uk/assets/non_inc_agreement_as_discussed.PDF

(1) it is a condition precedent to the Tenant being permitted to take up occupation of the Property that all of the following requirements are first fully
complied with within 14 working days of the signing of this Agreement. Any exemption, extension or waiver of this period or any of these requirements,
will be at the Agent!!!8217;s discretion:-
(i) provision of all the information sheets required fully and properly completed
(ii) provision of all guarantees/surety required duly completed executed and witnessed
(iii) satisfactory proof of identity of the Tenant and all guarantors
(iv) satisfactory references in respect of which the Landlord or the Landlord!!!8217;s Agent shall be the sole judge
(v) payment in full of the non-refundable administration charge
(vi) a completed direct debit mandate set in place and all monies due are paid in full (including any administration charge payable and payment of the
Deposit)

I am no lawyer, and for all I know these clauses may be incompatible with some law regulatio or whatever, so if anyone knows more I'm all ears.

As for the Shelter link, I'm not sure I understand it: what's the point you're trying to make?

My point is that I would not have wanted to pay the rent if the property becomes uninhabitable, it wasn't my fault and the landlord was insured. Is it such an unfair request?
The landlord commits to insuring the property, but insurers' exclusions change all the time - how am I to know what is and is not covered?