PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Agency refusing to send countersigned rental contract before full payment: is it normal?
SouthLondonUser
Posts: 1,425 Forumite
I have found a property to rent through one of the big agencies with a nationwide presence.
I have paid the holding deposit and signed the contract (not before arguing on some stupid clauses - but that's for another thread) through the system for signing online which the agency uses.
I have asked to receive a copy of the contract countersigned by the landlord, after which I will make the full payment of the remaining balance (security deposit + first month - holding deposit).
No. They don't do it this way. They expect full payment from me first, and only then will they send me the executed, countersigned contract.
Is this normal? I realise I am paranoid compared to most people (but most people sign anything without even reading...), but negotiating business contracts is a big part of my job, and in my job it would be unthinkable to send a payment without having a countersigned contract first!
In large transactions, payments and contracts are exchanged between lawyers, but here there are no lawyers, just an agent that works for the landlord.
I have pointed out that they have no risk whatsoever, because if the payment doesn't clear on time they will simply not give me the keys, so what do they have to lose? I don't get it. They said I'd have "squatter rights" but couldn't elaborate on it when challenged
The agency has said the landlord has signed and they have shown me a screenshot from their system, but, still, I do not have the countersigned contract.
Realistically, I am not exposed to much risk, because the worst that could happen is the landlord changes his mind or wants to change some terms last minute, but good luck to them winning the case in court, with the email trails and all that. Still, I find it crazy to make a payment without having the contract which regulates on what basis that payment is made.
Thoughts? What is normal in these cases?
In the past I had always signed in person first, then made a payment by bank transfer, but at that point I already had the countersigned contract.
PS I also find it crazy that, while the Law Society does publish guidelines (standard conditions of sale) for the sale and purchase of property, no such equivalent seems to exist in the rental sectors, so most tenants are left at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords and agents, because the bargaining power is often skewed.
I have paid the holding deposit and signed the contract (not before arguing on some stupid clauses - but that's for another thread) through the system for signing online which the agency uses.
I have asked to receive a copy of the contract countersigned by the landlord, after which I will make the full payment of the remaining balance (security deposit + first month - holding deposit).
No. They don't do it this way. They expect full payment from me first, and only then will they send me the executed, countersigned contract.
Is this normal? I realise I am paranoid compared to most people (but most people sign anything without even reading...), but negotiating business contracts is a big part of my job, and in my job it would be unthinkable to send a payment without having a countersigned contract first!
In large transactions, payments and contracts are exchanged between lawyers, but here there are no lawyers, just an agent that works for the landlord.
I have pointed out that they have no risk whatsoever, because if the payment doesn't clear on time they will simply not give me the keys, so what do they have to lose? I don't get it. They said I'd have "squatter rights" but couldn't elaborate on it when challenged
The agency has said the landlord has signed and they have shown me a screenshot from their system, but, still, I do not have the countersigned contract.
Realistically, I am not exposed to much risk, because the worst that could happen is the landlord changes his mind or wants to change some terms last minute, but good luck to them winning the case in court, with the email trails and all that. Still, I find it crazy to make a payment without having the contract which regulates on what basis that payment is made.
Thoughts? What is normal in these cases?
In the past I had always signed in person first, then made a payment by bank transfer, but at that point I already had the countersigned contract.
PS I also find it crazy that, while the Law Society does publish guidelines (standard conditions of sale) for the sale and purchase of property, no such equivalent seems to exist in the rental sectors, so most tenants are left at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords and agents, because the bargaining power is often skewed.
0
Comments
-
Its totally normal, with the signed tenancy agreement there are all sorts of issue around has the tenancy been started or not etc, you could use the document and claim to a locksmith you forgot your keys etc...
The contract was made by the agent, you have had time to view and sign that contract, basically they do not want the contract to be legally in place, aka a tenancy has started until they have received the funds.0 -
Visit the agency and do both simultaneously.
Pay and receive signed contract.0 -
Yes it's normal but not because you might gain squatters rights, that's rubbish. You could do as G_M suggests which is what I've done in the past.0
-
In your job, you'd be invoicing on completion of work, then payment would follow 30 or more days later, right? And the other party would be a large corporate?SouthLondonUser wrote: »...but negotiating business contracts is a big part of my job, and in my job it would be unthinkable to send a payment without having a countersigned contract first!0 -
Such as? What issues?Its totally normal, with the signed tenancy agreement there are all sorts of issue around has the tenancy been started or not etc, you could use the document and claim to a locksmith you forgot your keys etc...
A fraudulent tenant could fake the contract and go to a locksmith now! Plus this specific property has an active burglar alarm! Are there other issues?
The tenancy starts 5 weeks from now.
I suppose I'll have to go there in person, then.
PS yes, I imagined the squatter rights thing was nonsense!0 -
-
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.0
-
For reference, in most of the contracts I deal with at work, there tend to be conditions precedent about paying within a certain time frame from signing. Eg if we don't pay within a certain period of time from signing, then no contractual duty arises for the other party. This is perfectly reasonable, fair and protects both parties.
Why could it not be done with letting contracts? Maybe because London estate agents don't know the difference between a condition precedent and a banana, and are too used to a market in which tenants have zero bargaining power...0 -
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.0
-
But what's the problem with the contract being signed in advance of the keys/money changing hands?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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards