Holding deposit for rental and subsequent viewings

reheat

I'm trying to assist our daughter, who is in the process of trying to find herself a new rental property.

Once an agent has taken a holding deposit, can our daughter then be turned down, and her deposit returned, simply on a whim of the agent or landlord? Or can she only be turned down if there are legitimate problems with her rental application? How much of a safeguard does paying a rental deposit give to a rental candidate?

If someone has viewed a rental property and paid the agent a holding deposit, I already understand that it is be illegal for the agent to hold such deposits concurrently from multiple viewers of that property. So I doubt that is likely to be an issue these days, since 2019.

But what about subsequent viewings by other rental candidates? I know the agent is supposed to stop advertising the property as available, and presumably to stop accepting any new viewings. But what about viewings already arranged to be done after our daughter's viewing. Could the agent still run those viewings? 

I'm trying to understand if the agent could end up running a kind of Dutch auction, still trawling through their list of viewers (there are a lot of them, our daughter will be the second), and then pick someone who viewed after our daughter paid her holding deposit, the only cost to the agent being to return our daughter's deposit.

What is the situation, both legally and typically, with viewings already arranged after our daughter's viewing, if she pays a holding deposit on the spot. Note that the market is so incredibly competitive at the moment, and properties going so rapidly, she will have no choice to but to pay the holding deposit there and then if she likes the property and wants to secure it.

anselld

As you say it is illegal to take multiple holding deposits concurrently but as far as I kow that does not prevent continuation of advertising and/or viewings.  It would therefore be easy enough for the Agent/Landlord to do as you suggest however it seems unusal, I have not heard of this sort of gazumping happening in practice.

reheat

Also a further question.

In the sample rental guarantor agreement I've been looking at (in the event I need to act as guarantor), it says ...

Should the Guarantor die during the currency of this agreement, the Guarantor’s estate will be liable as surety and co-principal debtor 

Would this mean that if I died, then my wife, who is co-owner of our house, would then effectively become the guarantor? And if she did not have the funds required were they to become due, would in the extreme case have to release money from her property, either by selling her home, or by taking out equity release on it?

reheat

I note that in the Code of Practice for Residential Letting Agents, it says:

https://www.tradingstandards.uk/media/documents/commercial/codes-of-practice/tpo-residential-lettings.pdf

I would have thought that "removed from the market" should mean no further viewings?

anselld

reheat said:

Also a further question.

In the sample rental guarantor agreement I've been looking at (in the event I need to act as guarantor), it says ...

Should the Guarantor die during the currency of this agreement, the Guarantor’s estate will be liable as surety and co-principal debtor 

Would this mean that if I died, then my wife, who is co-owner of our house, would then effectively become the guarantor? And if she did not have the funds required were they to become due, would in the extreme case have to release money from her property, either by selling her home, or by taking out equity release on it?

Hopefully that will not be an issue.  It sounds unenforceable but in any case in the event of insolvent estates debts cannot be inherited.

anselld

reheat said:

I note that in the Code of Practice for Residential Letting Agents, it says:

I would have thought that "removed from the market" should mean no further viewings?

...  and are they a TPO member?

GDB2222

reheat said:

Also a further question.

In the sample rental guarantor agreement I've been looking at (in the event I need to act as guarantor), it says ...

Should the Guarantor die during the currency of this agreement, the Guarantor’s estate will be liable as surety and co-principal debtor 

Would this mean that if I died, then my wife, who is co-owner of our house, would then effectively become the guarantor? And if she did not have the funds required were they to become due, would in the extreme case have to release money from her property, either by selling her home, or by taking out equity release on it?

No, your estate is separate from the executors. 

reheat

anselld said:

...  and are they a TPO member?

Yes, I've just checked on the TPO website, and they are a full member.

reheat

GDB2222 said:

reheat said:

Also a further question.

In the sample rental guarantor agreement I've been looking at (in the event I need to act as guarantor), it says ...

Should the Guarantor die during the currency of this agreement, the Guarantor’s estate will be liable as surety and co-principal debtor 

Would this mean that if I died, then my wife, who is co-owner of our house, would then effectively become the guarantor? And if she did not have the funds required were they to become due, would in the extreme case have to release money from her property, either by selling her home, or by taking out equity release on it?

No, your estate is separate from the executors. 

So what does that clause mean then?

reheat

anselld said:

reheat said:

Also a further question.

In the sample rental guarantor agreement I've been looking at (in the event I need to act as guarantor), it says ...

Should the Guarantor die during the currency of this agreement, the Guarantor’s estate will be liable as surety and co-principal debtor 

Would this mean that if I died, then my wife, who is co-owner of our house, would then effectively become the guarantor? And if she did not have the funds required were they to become due, would in the extreme case have to release money from her property, either by selling her home, or by taking out equity release on it?

Hopefully that will not be an issue.  It sounds unenforceable but in any case in the event of insolvent estates debts cannot be inherited.

But surely if my wife was still living in a house she owned, with no other debts against it, the estate would not be insolvent?

canaldumidi

reheat said:

Also a further question.

In the sample rental guarantor agreement I've been looking at (in the event I need to act as guarantor), it says ...

Should the Guarantor die during the currency of this agreement, the Guarantor’s estate will be liable as surety and co-principal debtor 

Would this mean that if I died, then my wife, who is co-owner of our house, would then effectively become the guarantor? And if she did not have the funds required were they to become due, would in the extreme case have to release money from her property, either by selling her home, or by taking out equity release on it?

I clearly states your 'Estate', not your wife.

Though of course if you wife is a Beneficiary of your Estate then what she inherits will be reduced by any debts of the Estate which have to be paid befoe distribution by the Executors.

What I'm not so sure of is liability once Probate has been granted, the Estate wound up and distributed. I can't see the Estate being liable ad infinitum as that would mean the Executors would have to retain for ever sufficient assets to pay any future liability that might arise. Again thus reducing what your wife inherits.

But liability could not pass to the Beneficiary.