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

SouthLondonUser

I don't have the time nor the willingness to read all of it, but, skimming through, it seems that guy first made a payment then tried to challenge the charges he had already agreed to. Tooootally different scenario.

Yes, I do fully appreciate that some landlords and tenants will see me as "trouble". But, after having experienced most of my landlords trying to royally f*** me over, as I described here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5867956&page=2#38
I am not going to lower my guard and passively swallow every term or fee or condition they try to force down my throat. If this means that some landlords will see me as trouble, so be it - I don't want to be dealing with them, either. If a landlord doesn't agree to a clause which stops the rent if the property cannot be lived in, well, he can think of me as trouble for even mentioning it, but I have to wonder: what's the big deal? Is he aware of a specific risk that is not so immaterial? Will he not renew the insurance, or get a cheap one with tons of exclusions? Etc.

When I tried to sell my property, an agent told me to get lost because I didn't agree on the sole selling rights clause; I told him that if I sell to a relative or a friend I'll be more than happy to pay back his costs and a small fee, but not the full one. How did I dare challenge his terms? well, guess what, I found another agent and we're both happier this way.

Pixie5740

That OP showed themselves to be a pain the backside after passing referencing but before receiving a legally binding contract and go told to do one, can you really not see the similarity?

SouthLondonUser

Like I said, if the landlords see me as trouble it's a sign I probably want nothing to do with them, either.

Like I said, if a landlord throws up a big fuss about me not wanting to pay rent if the property cannot be lived in, it's me who gets suspicious and thinks the landlords is trouble.

It's a free world. We are all free to do or not do business with whoever we want, after all.

I am sure you will have no issue in finding landlords willing to rent to someone with your approach of passively swallowing every condition they might want to force down your throat.

Pixie5740

Ooh burn! :rotfl:

iammumtoone

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

When I tried to sell my property, an agent told me to get lost because I didn't agree on the sole selling rights clause; I told him that if I sell to a relative or a friend I'll be more than happy to pay back his costs and a small fee, but not the full one. How did I dare challenge his terms? well, guess what, I found another agent and we're both happier this way.

You are free to find another LL who will accept the terms you want to trade on. Nobody is forcing you to accept these terms you can walk away if they are not acceptable to you, but you can't force them to be what you want.


It the LLs house they could tell you they will only rent to you if you turn up in a bunny costume to sign the form, they can do what they want, equally you can do what you want and find another house/LL. It really is that simple either you accept the terms or not and find somewhere else, you don't have to agree with them but you do have to comply if you want this property.

SouthLondonUser

iammumtoone wrote: »

You are free to find another LL who will accept the terms you want to trade on. Nobody is forcing you to accept these terms you can walk away if they are not acceptable to you, but you can't force them to be what you want.

If this weren't the same concept I reiterated 3 posts above:

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

It's a free world. We are all free to do or not do business with whoever we want, after all.

I'd be thanking you for the unique insight provided.

SouthLondonUser

Pixie5740 wrote: »

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.

If the property is currently occupied by other tenants and the landlord has reason to suspect they might not leave on time, maybe. But then it's the new tenant that should be worried and should maybe look for another property.

If the property is instead currently empty, as it is in this case, what "potential risks" are we talking about? That total strangers squat in the property? That the landlord's main residence becomes flooded and he must move to the one he's trying to let? Sure, anything can happen, but, just like landlords should not trust tenants, tenants should not trust landlords, either.

Personally, I'd expect to have a signed contract in my hands a reasonable amount of time after paying the holding deposit. To each their own if you're fine with paying the holding deposit then waiting a month and a half before having a contract, of course, but please refrain from masquerading your very personal opinions as some kind of universally accepted self-evident truth. Waiting too long poses a serious risk for the tenant: if the landlord changes his mind the tenant will have wasted a lot of time for nothing, and may have to rush his search for a new property if in the meanwhile he/she has to leave the current one. I'm rather surprised that, as someone who loves commenting on landlord / tenants matters, you don't get this.

FBaby

Why do you keep going around circles? It's been already agreed and concluded that as a prospective tenant, you can pick whichever LL you consider to meet your expectations and vice versa. It then comes down to supply and demand. If you keep missing out on properties that you really like because of your demands, you might find that whatever principles you hold gets put aside and replaced by necessity.

At the same time, if you can find a LL happy to go with your demands, then you can go to sleep assured that you've passed the message that the control is in your hands.