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

SouthLondonUser

PS setting a condition precedent might still give the chance to the tenant to convince a locksmith to change the lock, but, the way I understand it, he'd be moving in WITHOUT a contract , ie in a situation no different from that of a total stranger just kicking down the door.

gycraig_2

Better question, how does it benefit then my to give you a signed tenancy agreement before you pay any money ?

SouthLondonUser

1) Landlord's solicitor?
The landlord doesn't have one. We have changed other clauses, including some to his benefit, without needing a solicitor.

2) irrelevant. If I really wanted to do that I'd print the blank contract, which I have, and fake his signature.

3) yes, I get that. Unfortunately this seems to be the only context in which it is normal to part with a significant amount of money without having a signed contract which regulates the conditions of the payment.

FBaby

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.

As Pixie suggests, if you are so concerned about protecting yourself, and rightly so, you do need to educate yourself.

What I have found most interesting about tenancy rights is that it applies to both the contract as times, but not at others. Ie. if you have a contract that says that the tenants need to cut the grass before they leave, then this will apply legally, whether the Landlord has left a mower or not (unless the contract specifies it).

However, if the contract says that the tenant must allow the LL to show people around after giving notice and the tenant refuses for good reasons, ie. they offer dates but the LL insists on coming when it suits without notifying the tenant, then it is likely that the terms of the contract would be upheld.

This is why Condition Precedents in a contract doesn't forcibly assure you of getting your way in courts. Think of squatters' rights, they don't have a contract in place and still it can take you many months and a lot of money to get them out.

The main thing that came to mind as to why as a LL I wouldn't agree to sign before payment is purely out of concern that you would decide the day before moving in that you've changed your mind. The agency might have got their fees, but as a LL, I'm left with another month or more without rent and without a contract, I can't take you to court. If you pay and the decide to go, you can't claim it back and at least I've got that month pay to look for someone else to move at the end of that month.

SouthLondonUser

Understood. Thank you all.
The last thing I'd say is that I might be willing to do it this way, however reluctantly, now that there is an agency involved. I would never ever do it with a private landlord. In that case, I'd insist on getting the contract the moment I hand the money, eg making a faster payment bank transfer in front of him. Or even paying a solicitor to leave the money in escrow till I get the keys.

Zorn

There appears to be the belief by posters on this thread that the tenancy and the agreement (contract) are the same thing.
They are not.

A tenancy is a right to occupy a property, created by the landlord giving possession of the property to the tenant.
The agreement (contract) records the terms on which the tenancy will be or has been granted.

The prospective tenant (they are not a tenant in law until possession has been granted) does not have the right to break in to a property just because they have an agreement that they can occupy the property (that would be a criminal offence of breaking and entering). The landlord has to provide the tenant with the keys to the property for possession to be granted.
Once possession has been granted, the tenant (as he now is) does have the right to break in.

The recourse for the prospective tenant if the landlord fails to provide possession is via the courts for breach of contract.

Furthermore, the contract does not have to be signed by the landlord for the contract to exist.
The contract is in place once it has been offered (by the landlord providing the prospective tenant with a copy to sign) and accepted (by the prospective tenant signing and returning a copy).

So, for the original question: the worst that can happen if the landlord provides a signed copy of the contract before receiving payment is the same as the worst that can happen if he does not.

A properly worded contract (agreement) will include the provision that possession of the property will not be granted by the landlord until the prospective tenant has paid <whatever the landlord wants, e.g. first period rent; deposit>.

Also, regarding squatters (as referenced several times), it is a criminal offence to squat in residential property, and the police should be called to remove squatters.
If the prospective tenant breaks in without having been granted psosession, then I believe that he is a squatter.

Therefore it is important that a tenant obtain written confirmation that he has been granted possession or given the keys to the property (to prevent unscrupulous landlords from claiming that possession was never granted and claiming that the tenant is a squatter).

Pixie5740

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

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

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.

That must have been some other poster called SouthLondonUser talking about voiding the contract over the page then.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

But if I didn't pay for 5 weeks the landlord would surely serve a notice, try to have the contract voided etc

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

What is signed is signed but, for the future, I'm wondering if it could make sense to add a clause stating something like: "the funds for the first payment and security deposit must clear within 3 business days from signing, otherwise the contract is null and void
This way if I don't pay I never acquire any rights to the property.

I already told you why, back on page 1 why it's not sensible for a landlord to give you a signed copy of the tenancy agreement so far in advance even though it went right over your head. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not you will pay the required monies in 5 weeks or whenever.

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?

What would happen if the landlord gave you a legally binding contract that far in advance and were unable to uphold their end? Answer, you could sue the landlord. Why would a landlord open themselves up to that sort of risk? I'm rather surprised that as someone who allegedly deals with contracts for a living you don't get this.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

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?

What it is you are struggling to understand about the Shelter link I provided?

SouthLondonUser

Pixie5740 wrote: »

That must have been some other poster called SouthLondonUser talking about voiding the contract over the page then.

At the very beginning, then I clarified it and also made the example of an AST template with explicit conditions precedent. Are you telling me that contract is wrong, illegal, incompatible with English law on ASTs?

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I already told you why, back on page 1 why it's not sensible for a landlord to give you a signed copy of the tenancy agreement so far in advance

"so far in advance" is a totally separate point, and one never raised by the agency. The landlord and the agent are not opposed to receiving the payment "so far in advance", and will send me my copy of the executed contract once the funds clear, even if it is "so far in advance"

Pixie5740 wrote: »

What it is you are struggling to understand about the Shelter link I provided?

It is very, very generic. I struggle to understand how it is relevant to the clause I objected to.

I didn't want to be liable to pay the rent if the property becomes uninhabitable, it wasn't my fault, and the landlord wasn't insured against that specific risk (risk which could be fire, flood, terrorist attack, Martian invasion or whatever).

Your link actually states:

Check if your tenancy agreement says anything about paying rent if your home cannot be lived in for any length of time.

.
No ****, Sherlock! That's precisely what I was trying to do.

Pixie5740

It's not a totally separate point. It's a very valid point because it's a very valid reason for the landlord not to do it. We had already established on the first page that the letting agent was talking pish the moment they mentioned squatters rights.

Just because the letting agent doesn't really know why they shouldn't let their client (the landlord) do something and makes up some BS reason doesn't mean that it's not the right thing for them to advise their client against doing. They're doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

Pixie5740

Keep going the way you are and you could end up like this poster:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5861605/renting-what-is-your-opinion-on-this-exchange