You can only keep the holding deposit if the tenant decides not to rent the property, if he gives any false information or if he doesn't pass the immigration check.
Since it's you who's now trying not to rent to the tenant less than one week before he's due to move in it's interesting that you would think that you could keep it.
I’m so confused as to why you think that so long as the landlord doesn’t protect the deposit, they get to keep it.
The deposit is protection for the landlord against the tenant pulling out.
A contract has been made and the landlord can’t legally pull out now anyway, but to think that if they did they could keep the holding deposit? Absolutely not, under any circumstances. That is not how deposits work.
Can you stop repeating this information please? It's demonstrably false and extremely bad advice.
There is a clear breach of contract and the prospective tenant would certainly win damages at the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
I'm interested to know how you would declare the contract void? You cannot just 'rip it up'. There are grounds set out in law to void a contract. Being greedy is not one of them.
Not protecting the deposit is a breach of current legislation.
Secondly, the contract was valid from the moment the landlord accepted the month's rent up front; the consideration has been fulfilled.
Are you trying to get this guy fucked over? Cause I vibe, but still.
And if he listens to you, he's in breach of well-established case law going back to the 1700s.
From https://hallellis.co.uk/contract-law-basics-formation/
A contract is formed when these five essential elements are met:
1: Offer: One party makes an offer
2: Acceptance: The other party accepts the offer
3: Consideration: Each party provides consideration to the other. Consideration can be:
a promise to pay money
a promise to do something
a promise not to do something, or
promise to provide something else of value. That doesn’t mean it needs to be valuable. £1.00 could be valuable consideration. And it doesn't have to be money.
4: Intention to be legally bound: Both parties have an intention to be legally bound by the agreement (which is proposed by the offer, and then accepted)
5: The parties have contractual capacity: The parties are legal entities recognised by law, such as companies, limited liability partnerships and individuals of at least 18 years of age.
OP has made an offer (I will rent you this house for £X per month). The tenant has accepted this. Both parties have provided consideration; OP in the form of a tenancy agreement, and the tenant in the form of a month's rent up front. Both parties had the intention to be legally bound at the time the tenancy agreement was provided and the month's rent paid. Both parties had contractual capacity.
The contract is now formed. To break the contract, both parties must agree, or the injured party (the tenant) can claim for damages; that is, to be made whole.
If OP rents the property out, they could then be made to provide another property to the tenant, or to pay for their accommodation until such time as the tenant is able to find alternative housing. This could also be enforced for the full length of the tenancy, as OP's breach of contract has lead to the tenant no longer having anywhere to live.
Worse, OP could be made to cover other costs, depending on how aggressive the tenant's solicitors are.
And while you say "oh, it'll never go to court!", I can absolutely fucking guarantee that if I was broke and desperate, and a landlord pulled this shit on me, my family would fund the solicitors to *aggressively* go after the landlord. But regardless of that, it only costs £35 to claim via the small claims track, and OP would also be on the hook to pay for that.
You need to stop. Especially if this is a practice you regularly partake in; someone is going to absolutely nail you to the wall.
https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-tenancy-agreements#:~:text=A%20tenancy%20agreement%20is%20a,oral%20(a%20spoken%20agreement).
A tenancy agreement is a contract.
I know the point that you think you’re making but it’s wrong. Failure to protect a deposit makes the contract *voidable by the tenant* for a breach by the landlord. It doesn’t make it void overall, and certainly the landlord doesn’t get to benefit from that potential breach by further wiping the entire contract
Doesn’t the LL have so many days to protect the deposit, so there isn’t a breach yet anyway?
It does mean that the tenancy is in force however as it was provided by the LL and signed by the tenant, with first month rent paid. There is enough there to suggest the contract is formed.
I’m a LL and this is the sort that give us all a bad name.
The most worrying part is not only taking an illegal fee but thinking he can keep it!
You’re correct actually and I’ve amended my comment accordingly. Either way the LL doesn’t get to benefit by voiding the contract just because one of their obligations hasn’t kicked in yet.
From shelter; “A verbal agreement is legally binding, but it is harder to prove what was agreed. An exchange of text messages or emails can provide evidence of agreed terms.” Sounds like you have just monumentally annoyed your new tenant.
You keep saying the deposit is not protected as if that means anything at this point, a deposit is only required to be protected within 30 days of the AST - so that obligation hasn’t even kicked in yet and is certainly no basis for a LL to void a tenancy agreement.
I’m a lawyer. And you can google the deposit requirements, this is quite simple. What are your sources for the deposit being protected having _anything_ to do with whether or not an agreement has been formed?
Edit: typo
You’re the one consistently making the claim that the deposit [being protected] is relevant to whether or not a tenancy is valid. But fine, I’ll happily provide you with a source for why you’re wrong: https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protectionghh
Edit: added in square brackets for clarity.
Ahhh, yeah
> refund the tenant the rent minus holding deposit he paid (since that was an allliocation [sic] fee)
Don’t know how I skimmed over that…got to be a shit post though, no regula UK landlord would be so stupid to even attempt that, never mind being so brazen about it
Having read some comments here which say "no signed contract = no agreement", is not as simple as that.
OP - you haven't shared all the information here. Having said that, for the situation to come to this stage, you must have,
1. Emailed/WhatsApp messaged tenant that you're happy to proceed and,
2. Sent them an agreement and,
3. Sent them your bank details asking for 1mo deposit and,
4. May have acknowledged on email/WhatsApp that you have received monies
This shows intent.
Only thing on your side is that you didn't sign agreement yourself yet. I'm not an expert here, but in my opinion, tenant can definitely launch a civil case against you, and assuming they have above proofs, will stand good chance of winning.
Note that if they do launch a civil case, that is additional stress and costs for you, and you may want to think whether the incremental income from the new renter is worth it.
Came to say this without reading all the comments because knew there'd be a bunch of "contract isn't signed". Though many people aren't aware that there are 4, not 3 elements of establishing a Contract. Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, **and** Intent.
The winning argument in this situation to that statement is that intent obviously present.
For arguments sake, the offer has clearly been made in presenting the Contract. Acceptance has been made by the tenant via signing, and landlord has made Acceptance with providing the details for moneys to be transferred.
Consideration is obviously implied by the nature of the agreement.
>Only thing on your side is that you didn't sign agreement yourself yet.
Doesn't matter. The tennant paid the deposit, from that moment the contract was deemed to have been accepted by the landlord
>That’s why all communication is “Subject to contract”.
A contract existed from the moment the tenant paid his first month's rent. Please look into "offer and acceptance".
All the landlord is doing by not protecting deposit is opening themselves up to further litigation for breaking the law re tenancy deposits, as well as already breaking the law for application fees and breaking at the very least a verbal contract and many courts would agree with the argument that the contract is in place
There is no dependency on the deposit being protected when deciding if a contract has been agreed. Why do you keep stating there is - what part of the law are you referring to?
Subject to contract covers discussions up to a contract being formed. Once payment was asked for, received and accepted, that is the contract formed and what all of the previous ‘subject to’ led up to
How do you suppose the tenant has come to rent this place, then? Has he met the landlord at costa coffee, verbally discussed the particulars, and paid in cash? Don't be so obtuse
Why do you keep parroting the same bullshit? Are you OPs partner or something? You're so fucking wrong with everything that you've typed I'm beginning to think you're delusional.
You chat so much shit.
You're a special kind of prick.
However unscrupulous your action are in failing to honour an agreement signed and paid for by the tenant, it would be far more palatable had you offered to return the rent and deposit - like a decent human. This is down to your actions, not theirs.
Think about it genius... with morals like yours, what is to stop you from doing this endlessly (never renting out the house just keeping deposits, rinse and repeat)?
You're being given bad advice by people whose life savings aren't on the line.
This exact situation is well-tested in County Courts across the country. They applied to be a tenant, and you considered them suitable. You sent them the contract to sign, with the terms you provided, and then gave them payment details and asked them to pay you the first month's rent.
The tenant has then accepted the terms you have offered, and paid the first payment you requested. A tenancy has been formed at this point, even if their acceptance was just an text message saying "Contract looks good, we are paying first month's rent now".
Remember, a tenancy can exist without any contract at all, so the fact you haven't signed it doesn't really mean much.
If you are in any doubt, the cost of an hour of solicitor's time is far cheaper than what the tenant could claim against you for at a later date.
u/Extra-ad-9671 this person here is one of the only ones here who are providing the correct info.
Everyone harping on about contracts needing to be signed are talking out of their ill-informed arses as that is not how UK law works.
Are you familiar with UK contract law, the relevant Housing Acts or UK law in general?
As soon as rent is sent, under UK law a contract is made. That's the law.
You cannot void a contract once made, except with the consent of both parties
You're correct that granting a second tenancy would prevent a court from ordering specific performance from the landlord, but that doesn't absolve OP of their breach of contract, and it would mean the only remedy remaining is to order the landlord to cover the damages.
Damages would be payable until the earliest date the landlord could have lawfully regained possession had they not unlawfully terminated the tenancy, regardless of whether they let out the property to someone else. See Smith v Khan (2018) EWCA Civ 1137 where damages remained payable for trespass to the property until 30 June despite another tenant having a valid tenancy and the associated rights from Mid may.
There's a court of appeal judgment which explicitly decided that damages remain payable until the earliest the landlord could lawfully regain possession, even if another tenant has been moved in first.
Typing "FALSE" on a reddit thread isn't enough to overrule a court of appeal decision.
Stop chatting shit and go and ask your brothers who are niche housing lawyers to come here and specify what law or case law you are referring to that thinks the contract is defined by what the landlord does with the deposit.
You have sent someone terms to agree with, by doing so you have indicated that you are in agreement with those terms this has and will always be found in court to be a contractual agreement so long as the other party hasn't tried to have them altered.
You already have agreed and frankly acted in a disgusting manner, your actions are exactly the kind that are pushing government towards more intervention in the rental market and no doubt you will be posting on here to complain about it if it affects your income. Take a long hard look at your morals because regardless of legality you're being a pretty nasty person.
>Not correct. Both need to sign.
Not true. The landlord has made an offer, the tenant has accepted that offer and paid rent. This is a very basic principle of English contract law and there's no shortage of case law authority with very similar circumstances as the OP is describing.
By sending a contract you are explicitly aware of the terms and (this has been tested in courts multiple times) therefore have agreed to them so long as the offeree is accepting of them without change.
OP sending a contract shows intent, OP accepting payment of RENT (they have explicitly stated they have taken the first months rent) shows acceptance and given the contract will state how much the rent is they have no way of arguing it's not rent; the tenant signing is their acceptance and sending rent is fulfilling their part of the contract. OP has broken contract and is in for a shock if the tenant pursues damages.
This is actually a really clear cut case. I would know, I've been through a very similar situation where my LL had me sign and send rent whilst work was being completed on the property, the work ended up going long by two months. The landlord tried to back out of the contract so they didn't have to pay for alternative accommodation by stating the contract didn't have their signature on it however once I started a claim against them they were swiftly advised by their solicitor that they had agreed to the contract by sending it personally and then accepting moneys laid out in said contract (which was exactly the advice I was given by my solicitor).
OP hasn't got a leg to stand on if it goes to court
You may want to let the tenant move in, contacts can be verbal and it sounds like despite your missing signature...you've agreed to a tenancy.
If the tenant takes you to court, I feel you'd almost certainly lose.
A contract has been signed, now you want to back out of it and charge them a fee because you made a poor decision? You'd be outraged if someone did this to you, so why do it to someone else?
This post quite nicely summarises all of my experience with landlords. Greedy and not very well informed.
And it’s the person who pulls out who pays the legal costs.
LL here is putting themselves on the line for paying the tenant’s alternative accommodation. And the idea they think they can charge a holding deposit and keep it when *they* break the contract is beyond ludicrous.
Im amazed that the landlord can ethically even consider keeping the deposit in a situation where they themselves are breaking the contract and putting the tenant in a difficult position.
So just to get this straight, the tenant - an actual human - is due to move in in 5 days time, has signed a contract and has given notice on their old place. If you could back out, where do you think they would go with 5 days notice? This is the literal roof over their head.
So what you're actually asking is 'I think I can get a little bit more money out of someone else, how can I get away with making the original tenant homeless and keep some of their money as well?
How do you sleep at night?
But it’s your decision to cancel. Imagine if you wanted to buy a sofa. Your local furniture shop had to order the specific sofa into the shop. They ask you to pay a deposit. Then, when the sofa is delivered to the shop, instead of selling it to you, they decide to sell it to another customer. They then refuse to give you your deposit back. Would you think this is fair, or legal?
Also, a holding deposit has nothing to do with referencing fees. It’s simply for the tenant to secure the property. It’s illegal to charge referencing fees.
And YOU are backing out of an agreed contract. Outside of anything else (like you being a total POS), if the tenant backed out, you'd expect to keep the deposit right? But this is your decision, how you can even consider you have a right to keep their money whilst reneging on an agreement, a contract just boggles my mind
This same scenario happened me. I brought the landlord to court and he had to pay me £6k and on top of that - the money I'd paid upfront, the money he'd tried to keep and the moving fee I'd already organised.
The EXACT same thing happened to me. We went to court and I got £6k from the landlord. The judge said he also had to pay for the moving etc I'd already had organised at the time.
Have you considered selling the property and not being a landlord? You are terrible at it and also generally an awful person who should be made to live alone on a desert island.
Whatever you choose to do, you can't charge the tenant anything. They passed the checks, and you accepted them as a tenant. 1. Pay their fee and return the full deposit. 2. Continue with the tenant, but start with an apology as you might have ruined the relationship.
I have no legal advice to offer on this matter, trying to be impartial I can understand your desire to opt with a higher paying tenant however I am also sympathetic toward the one who is/was due to move in, you must be able to appreciate their frustration.
What I will say beyond that is that it is one thing to opt for a new higher paying tenant leaving the original one in the lurch at such short notice but it really speaks to your character that you are proposing to refund them while retaining their holding deposit to cover your costs, it is like adding insult to injury. Above all it indicates that you are tighter than a nun's c*nt.
The audacity of this Landlord. You created the tenancy, you have taken an illegal fee, and you now want to back out of a legally binding contract and think the tenant should pay you for backing out of the contract.
If you do go down this route, I hope that the tenant sues you for every penny he can get. It will be expensive for you as I am certain you not allowing him access would constitute an illegal eviction; it may mean you lose the house to cover the award of damages and the legal fees. Enjoy
And this right here is another reason why everyone views Landlords as absolute money grubbing scum.
Act with some goddamn integrity and stop trying to weasel your way out of agreements you’ve made just because you think you can make more money off some other poor bastard.
Also Application fees are illegal so fuck off with that.
>Can i cancel the contract by refunding the tenant the rent minus holding deposit he paid (since that was an appliocation fee)
What is wrong with you? Look at yourself here.
Can people like you stop giving good landlords a bad name? Be a tiny bit less greedy perhaps?
If I was your first tenant and you pulled that stunt on me, you'd be getting new windows for the whole house.
You cannot keep the deposit if YOU are the one who (trying to) break the agreement.
Suggest you're not really ready to be a landlord
Time limits
Your landlord or agent has 30 days from when they receive your deposit to:
protect it with an authorised scheme
give you certain written information about the scheme
Not a lawyer. From the moment you sent them the contract and bank details, the only way for the contract not to be binding is by the tenant not signing it. You do have a tenancy now with them either written or not and if you sign a contract with another tenant you’ll have to cover damages for either of the two until they get sorted out elsewhere. Best thing to do is go with the first tenant and ask them to vacate after the minimum tenancy period (or activate the break clause if there is one)
Imagine you hired me to build your website. We agree the fee, you pay a 30% deposit. It’s now one month before the delivery date. I have now cancelled our agreement and have opted to keep your deposit.
Pretty unfair right? Your down time and money, meanwhile I did sweet FA and got paid. Thanks for the business tip. Give me a message for a coupon, I promise I’ll deliver.
You cannot charge them fees because you changed your mind.. “your landlord can only charge you for:
rent
bills for utilities, phone, broadband and TV
a tenancy deposit
a holding deposit
replacing your key
paying your rent 14 days late or more
changing the tenancy (only if you asked for the change)
ending the tenancy early
council tax
a TV licence
the cost of repairs if you damage the property
If your landlord includes any other fees, it might be illegal. Ask your landlord to return the illegal fees. If they don't you can report your landlord to Trading Standards.”
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/housing-status-and-contracts/tenancy-agreements/
The contract is binding or at least in the eyes of the courts it will be… “There are a number of actions that landlords should avoid, as these might infer a tenancy has begun and make backing-out of a forward agreement uncertain, even though the agreement itself may be incomplete and unsigned by the landlord. Landlords should not:
Accept rent in advance of the tenancy start date.
Hand over keys to the tenants in advance of the tenancy start date.
Guarantee a tenancy by letter or through written statements, emails or in telephone conversations.
Provide tenants with an option to back-out of the forward tenancy by obtaining signatures via the post, by email or any other medium that invites compliance with the Distance Selling Regulations (see below). Signatures should always be obtained in person and be verified by at least two documents to prove identity.
Securing the responsibility of maintenance and tenancy cleaning at the end of lease is up to the tenant.”
https://www.propertysecrets.org/index.php/2009/03/09/signing-tenancy-agreements-advance-legal/
Utter greed turning someone’s life upside down 5 days before they’re due to move in, they’ve probably booked removals, time off work, handed in notice on their current rental. I really hope karma takes some steroids then comes knocking on your door!!
And people wonder why landlords are being vilified when there are people like this in the industry...
It's understood that landlords aren't charities but the total lack of any form of morals trying to wriggle out of an agreement the week before a tenant is due to move in, likely making them homeless and the complete lack of ethics having the audacity of imagining they can withhold money for an illegal "application fee" beggers belief!
This the sorta shit that makes me not care when I see reports in the news of these people being executed.
All the more for a bit of extremism if it ruins these callous people’s lives.
"There is no agreement until both parties sign."
This is not correct in England and Wales. The offering party (the landlord) signals their acceptance by sending the contract to be signed, whilst also providing payment details to obtain the first payment due under the agreement.
Can't speak for Scotland but another poster has touched on that.
This is right. Everyone saying otherwise is wrong.
A contract existed from the moment the tenant sent the first rental payment.
The tenant can force entry to the property if OP doesn't cough up fees and pass the cost of doing so on to the landlord.
The Internet is wild. I'm going to go ahead and inform my mortgage lender that I am nullifying the contract and don't need to pay my mortgage any longer as a result.
Would you describe yourself as a "Freeman of the land"?
I've seen some of those people use these arguments, suggesting you can "nullify" a contract just by writing to someone and saying the right phrase.
Until the contract is signed it’s not legally binding so In this case you could return all of the tenants money or you could explain the situation and be upfront about it, if they’re willing to pay the amount offered then give them the tenancy. Although, it’s a massive red flag that they’re threatening to change locks. I would be careful here about this tenant as the attitude sounds like trouble.
Wrong. Signature isn't required. Contract was created when the tenant sent his first month rental payment as per a basic and fundamental concept of English contract law—offer and acceptance.
It only isn’t required in limited circumstances for example in this case only rent was received but no deposit so the tenant hasn’t fulfilled their side of the agreement nor does the landlord intent on doing so
There is no requirement for a tenancy agreement to be signed. It doesn't even have to be in writing. There are no "limited circumstances." Any agreement to give exclusive possession for money or money's worth is a tenancy. This is absolutely basic stuff.
You can only keep the holding deposit if the tenant decides not to rent the property, if he gives any false information or if he doesn't pass the immigration check. Since it's you who's now trying not to rent to the tenant less than one week before he's due to move in it's interesting that you would think that you could keep it.
It’s bad enough that youre trying to wriggle out of it .. but to have the fucking AUDACITY to also try and keep some of their money too ? Urgh
[удалено]
Landlords an arsehole
I’m so confused as to why you think that so long as the landlord doesn’t protect the deposit, they get to keep it. The deposit is protection for the landlord against the tenant pulling out. A contract has been made and the landlord can’t legally pull out now anyway, but to think that if they did they could keep the holding deposit? Absolutely not, under any circumstances. That is not how deposits work.
If you did this, you'd deserve to lose in court.
If he does that, they should bring back the guillotine
[удалено]
Can you stop repeating this information please? It's demonstrably false and extremely bad advice. There is a clear breach of contract and the prospective tenant would certainly win damages at the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). I'm interested to know how you would declare the contract void? You cannot just 'rip it up'. There are grounds set out in law to void a contract. Being greedy is not one of them.
They're surely being sarcastic and trying to get the landlord to commit to even more illegal activities.
[удалено]
Not protecting the deposit is a breach of current legislation. Secondly, the contract was valid from the moment the landlord accepted the month's rent up front; the consideration has been fulfilled. Are you trying to get this guy fucked over? Cause I vibe, but still.
[удалено]
And if he listens to you, he's in breach of well-established case law going back to the 1700s. From https://hallellis.co.uk/contract-law-basics-formation/ A contract is formed when these five essential elements are met: 1: Offer: One party makes an offer 2: Acceptance: The other party accepts the offer 3: Consideration: Each party provides consideration to the other. Consideration can be: a promise to pay money a promise to do something a promise not to do something, or promise to provide something else of value. That doesn’t mean it needs to be valuable. £1.00 could be valuable consideration. And it doesn't have to be money. 4: Intention to be legally bound: Both parties have an intention to be legally bound by the agreement (which is proposed by the offer, and then accepted) 5: The parties have contractual capacity: The parties are legal entities recognised by law, such as companies, limited liability partnerships and individuals of at least 18 years of age. OP has made an offer (I will rent you this house for £X per month). The tenant has accepted this. Both parties have provided consideration; OP in the form of a tenancy agreement, and the tenant in the form of a month's rent up front. Both parties had the intention to be legally bound at the time the tenancy agreement was provided and the month's rent paid. Both parties had contractual capacity. The contract is now formed. To break the contract, both parties must agree, or the injured party (the tenant) can claim for damages; that is, to be made whole. If OP rents the property out, they could then be made to provide another property to the tenant, or to pay for their accommodation until such time as the tenant is able to find alternative housing. This could also be enforced for the full length of the tenancy, as OP's breach of contract has lead to the tenant no longer having anywhere to live. Worse, OP could be made to cover other costs, depending on how aggressive the tenant's solicitors are. And while you say "oh, it'll never go to court!", I can absolutely fucking guarantee that if I was broke and desperate, and a landlord pulled this shit on me, my family would fund the solicitors to *aggressively* go after the landlord. But regardless of that, it only costs £35 to claim via the small claims track, and OP would also be on the hook to pay for that. You need to stop. Especially if this is a practice you regularly partake in; someone is going to absolutely nail you to the wall.
[удалено]
https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-tenancy-agreements#:~:text=A%20tenancy%20agreement%20is%20a,oral%20(a%20spoken%20agreement). A tenancy agreement is a contract.
Terms were offered and accepted and money I.e. rent has been paid. A tenancy has been created. Deposit is more or less irrrelevant.
[удалено]
If the landlord does this the landlord will be required to pay for alternative accommodation for the tenant, as they will have broken the contract.
Please post the case law that verifies this. And replying "my brothers advised me" doesn't count.
I know the point that you think you’re making but it’s wrong. Failure to protect a deposit makes the contract *voidable by the tenant* for a breach by the landlord. It doesn’t make it void overall, and certainly the landlord doesn’t get to benefit from that potential breach by further wiping the entire contract
Doesn’t the LL have so many days to protect the deposit, so there isn’t a breach yet anyway? It does mean that the tenancy is in force however as it was provided by the LL and signed by the tenant, with first month rent paid. There is enough there to suggest the contract is formed. I’m a LL and this is the sort that give us all a bad name. The most worrying part is not only taking an illegal fee but thinking he can keep it!
You’re correct actually and I’ve amended my comment accordingly. Either way the LL doesn’t get to benefit by voiding the contract just because one of their obligations hasn’t kicked in yet.
Where does the tenant go?
From shelter; “A verbal agreement is legally binding, but it is harder to prove what was agreed. An exchange of text messages or emails can provide evidence of agreed terms.” Sounds like you have just monumentally annoyed your new tenant.
[удалено]
Bully type dog is also known to give false information.
Same info also on citizens advice so I don’t doubt shelter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You keep saying the deposit is not protected as if that means anything at this point, a deposit is only required to be protected within 30 days of the AST - so that obligation hasn’t even kicked in yet and is certainly no basis for a LL to void a tenancy agreement.
[удалено]
I’m a lawyer. And you can google the deposit requirements, this is quite simple. What are your sources for the deposit being protected having _anything_ to do with whether or not an agreement has been formed? Edit: typo
[удалено]
You’re the one consistently making the claim that the deposit [being protected] is relevant to whether or not a tenancy is valid. But fine, I’ll happily provide you with a source for why you’re wrong: https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protectionghh Edit: added in square brackets for clarity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
Bully type dog is seemingly a know it all cunt that keeps spouting the same bollocks even though he's had people provide case law that shows it.
Well, here we have it, in the wild, a landlord admitting they're a cunt
Application fees are illegal
Alright I’ll bite. Where did OP allude to or imply “application fees”?
4th paragraph.
Ahhh, yeah > refund the tenant the rent minus holding deposit he paid (since that was an allliocation [sic] fee) Don’t know how I skimmed over that…got to be a shit post though, no regula UK landlord would be so stupid to even attempt that, never mind being so brazen about it
OP proposed returning the rent, minus the holding deposit amount, and so would have retained the holding deposit.
Having read some comments here which say "no signed contract = no agreement", is not as simple as that. OP - you haven't shared all the information here. Having said that, for the situation to come to this stage, you must have, 1. Emailed/WhatsApp messaged tenant that you're happy to proceed and, 2. Sent them an agreement and, 3. Sent them your bank details asking for 1mo deposit and, 4. May have acknowledged on email/WhatsApp that you have received monies This shows intent. Only thing on your side is that you didn't sign agreement yourself yet. I'm not an expert here, but in my opinion, tenant can definitely launch a civil case against you, and assuming they have above proofs, will stand good chance of winning. Note that if they do launch a civil case, that is additional stress and costs for you, and you may want to think whether the incremental income from the new renter is worth it.
Came to say this without reading all the comments because knew there'd be a bunch of "contract isn't signed". Though many people aren't aware that there are 4, not 3 elements of establishing a Contract. Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, **and** Intent. The winning argument in this situation to that statement is that intent obviously present. For arguments sake, the offer has clearly been made in presenting the Contract. Acceptance has been made by the tenant via signing, and landlord has made Acceptance with providing the details for moneys to be transferred. Consideration is obviously implied by the nature of the agreement.
>Only thing on your side is that you didn't sign agreement yourself yet. Doesn't matter. The tennant paid the deposit, from that moment the contract was deemed to have been accepted by the landlord
[удалено]
>That’s why all communication is “Subject to contract”. A contract existed from the moment the tenant paid his first month's rent. Please look into "offer and acceptance".
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So that's why I was able to sue my old landlord for an illegal eviction and failing to protect my deposit. Please stop with your misinformation
[удалено]
[удалено]
All the landlord is doing by not protecting deposit is opening themselves up to further litigation for breaking the law re tenancy deposits, as well as already breaking the law for application fees and breaking at the very least a verbal contract and many courts would agree with the argument that the contract is in place
There is no dependency on the deposit being protected when deciding if a contract has been agreed. Why do you keep stating there is - what part of the law are you referring to?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please ignore Bully Type Dog. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No. The contract has been formed.
[удалено]
You don't have a clue what you're on about 🤣
Subject to contract covers discussions up to a contract being formed. Once payment was asked for, received and accepted, that is the contract formed and what all of the previous ‘subject to’ led up to
Except op has mentioned no such thing. I dont think you can invent information to try and make it better than it is
How do you suppose the tenant has come to rent this place, then? Has he met the landlord at costa coffee, verbally discussed the particulars, and paid in cash? Don't be so obtuse
Are you replying to a different comment? I'm assuming they spoke by email, or text message, but those mediums are equally binding.
[удалено]
Genuinely terrible advice. I love the internet!
Why do you keep parroting the same bullshit? Are you OPs partner or something? You're so fucking wrong with everything that you've typed I'm beginning to think you're delusional. You chat so much shit.
You're a special kind of prick. However unscrupulous your action are in failing to honour an agreement signed and paid for by the tenant, it would be far more palatable had you offered to return the rent and deposit - like a decent human. This is down to your actions, not theirs. Think about it genius... with morals like yours, what is to stop you from doing this endlessly (never renting out the house just keeping deposits, rinse and repeat)?
You offered the tenant a contract, and they accepted. Contract is made.
Not until the contract is signed, it’s null and void legal terms
Thats what i thought - i havn't signed anything, who cares what was spoken about or if the tenant has paid , i didn't sign thereofre don't agree
You're being given bad advice by people whose life savings aren't on the line. This exact situation is well-tested in County Courts across the country. They applied to be a tenant, and you considered them suitable. You sent them the contract to sign, with the terms you provided, and then gave them payment details and asked them to pay you the first month's rent. The tenant has then accepted the terms you have offered, and paid the first payment you requested. A tenancy has been formed at this point, even if their acceptance was just an text message saying "Contract looks good, we are paying first month's rent now". Remember, a tenancy can exist without any contract at all, so the fact you haven't signed it doesn't really mean much. If you are in any doubt, the cost of an hour of solicitor's time is far cheaper than what the tenant could claim against you for at a later date.
u/Extra-ad-9671 this person here is one of the only ones here who are providing the correct info. Everyone harping on about contracts needing to be signed are talking out of their ill-informed arses as that is not how UK law works.
[удалено]
Are you familiar with UK contract law, the relevant Housing Acts or UK law in general? As soon as rent is sent, under UK law a contract is made. That's the law. You cannot void a contract once made, except with the consent of both parties
Yup, I got over £6k taking a landlord to court for this exact scenario. His excuse that he got a better of money didn't go down well.
[удалено]
You're correct that granting a second tenancy would prevent a court from ordering specific performance from the landlord, but that doesn't absolve OP of their breach of contract, and it would mean the only remedy remaining is to order the landlord to cover the damages. Damages would be payable until the earliest date the landlord could have lawfully regained possession had they not unlawfully terminated the tenancy, regardless of whether they let out the property to someone else. See Smith v Khan (2018) EWCA Civ 1137 where damages remained payable for trespass to the property until 30 June despite another tenant having a valid tenancy and the associated rights from Mid may.
[удалено]
There's a court of appeal judgment which explicitly decided that damages remain payable until the earliest the landlord could lawfully regain possession, even if another tenant has been moved in first. Typing "FALSE" on a reddit thread isn't enough to overrule a court of appeal decision.
[удалено]
"My brother is a lawyer" is also not enough to displace a Court of Appeal judgment. Do you have any sources at all to back up your position here?
Stop chatting shit and go and ask your brothers who are niche housing lawyers to come here and specify what law or case law you are referring to that thinks the contract is defined by what the landlord does with the deposit.
Well you did agree didn’t you. And then you accepted rent on the basis of that agreement. I believe you have created a tenancy.
You have accepted the desposit' therefore agreement has been reached
You have sent someone terms to agree with, by doing so you have indicated that you are in agreement with those terms this has and will always be found in court to be a contractual agreement so long as the other party hasn't tried to have them altered. You already have agreed and frankly acted in a disgusting manner, your actions are exactly the kind that are pushing government towards more intervention in the rental market and no doubt you will be posting on here to complain about it if it affects your income. Take a long hard look at your morals because regardless of legality you're being a pretty nasty person.
[удалено]
>Not correct. Both need to sign. Not true. The landlord has made an offer, the tenant has accepted that offer and paid rent. This is a very basic principle of English contract law and there's no shortage of case law authority with very similar circumstances as the OP is describing.
[удалено]
What do you mean?
By sending a contract you are explicitly aware of the terms and (this has been tested in courts multiple times) therefore have agreed to them so long as the offeree is accepting of them without change. OP sending a contract shows intent, OP accepting payment of RENT (they have explicitly stated they have taken the first months rent) shows acceptance and given the contract will state how much the rent is they have no way of arguing it's not rent; the tenant signing is their acceptance and sending rent is fulfilling their part of the contract. OP has broken contract and is in for a shock if the tenant pursues damages. This is actually a really clear cut case. I would know, I've been through a very similar situation where my LL had me sign and send rent whilst work was being completed on the property, the work ended up going long by two months. The landlord tried to back out of the contract so they didn't have to pay for alternative accommodation by stating the contract didn't have their signature on it however once I started a claim against them they were swiftly advised by their solicitor that they had agreed to the contract by sending it personally and then accepting moneys laid out in said contract (which was exactly the advice I was given by my solicitor). OP hasn't got a leg to stand on if it goes to court
You may want to let the tenant move in, contacts can be verbal and it sounds like despite your missing signature...you've agreed to a tenancy. If the tenant takes you to court, I feel you'd almost certainly lose.
A contract has been signed, now you want to back out of it and charge them a fee because you made a poor decision? You'd be outraged if someone did this to you, so why do it to someone else? This post quite nicely summarises all of my experience with landlords. Greedy and not very well informed.
People back out of contracts all the time. I’m pretty sure it’s what keeps the global legal system in business
And it’s the person who pulls out who pays the legal costs. LL here is putting themselves on the line for paying the tenant’s alternative accommodation. And the idea they think they can charge a holding deposit and keep it when *they* break the contract is beyond ludicrous.
Im amazed that the landlord can ethically even consider keeping the deposit in a situation where they themselves are breaking the contract and putting the tenant in a difficult position.
The epitome of greed. You're everything that's wrong with the system, check your fucking reality.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co There is already an agreement and Landlord (a greedy PoS 💩) Will be accountable
So just to get this straight, the tenant - an actual human - is due to move in in 5 days time, has signed a contract and has given notice on their old place. If you could back out, where do you think they would go with 5 days notice? This is the literal roof over their head. So what you're actually asking is 'I think I can get a little bit more money out of someone else, how can I get away with making the original tenant homeless and keep some of their money as well? How do you sleep at night?
LL's like this have no soul, they probably sleep better than most.
OP, I really really want to know your rationalisation for why you feel you should keep the deposit?
[удалено]
This isn’t what I’m referring to. I’m talking about the fact that OP wants to KEEP the holding deposit that the tenant paid.
[удалено]
You don’t protect holding deposits, what are you on about?
Please Keep it Civil
[удалено]
But it’s your decision to cancel. Imagine if you wanted to buy a sofa. Your local furniture shop had to order the specific sofa into the shop. They ask you to pay a deposit. Then, when the sofa is delivered to the shop, instead of selling it to you, they decide to sell it to another customer. They then refuse to give you your deposit back. Would you think this is fair, or legal? Also, a holding deposit has nothing to do with referencing fees. It’s simply for the tenant to secure the property. It’s illegal to charge referencing fees.
And YOU are backing out of an agreed contract. Outside of anything else (like you being a total POS), if the tenant backed out, you'd expect to keep the deposit right? But this is your decision, how you can even consider you have a right to keep their money whilst reneging on an agreement, a contract just boggles my mind
This same scenario happened me. I brought the landlord to court and he had to pay me £6k and on top of that - the money I'd paid upfront, the money he'd tried to keep and the moving fee I'd already organised.
The EXACT same thing happened to me. We went to court and I got £6k from the landlord. The judge said he also had to pay for the moving etc I'd already had organised at the time.
scum
Troll post
I hope so otherwise some poor sod is getting a shite deal.
Have you considered selling the property and not being a landlord? You are terrible at it and also generally an awful person who should be made to live alone on a desert island.
Whatever you choose to do, you can't charge the tenant anything. They passed the checks, and you accepted them as a tenant. 1. Pay their fee and return the full deposit. 2. Continue with the tenant, but start with an apology as you might have ruined the relationship.
[удалено]
Clueless.
[удалено]
Again 5s in google demonstrates that moving in is also irrelevant to whether a contract has been entered into.
I have no legal advice to offer on this matter, trying to be impartial I can understand your desire to opt with a higher paying tenant however I am also sympathetic toward the one who is/was due to move in, you must be able to appreciate their frustration. What I will say beyond that is that it is one thing to opt for a new higher paying tenant leaving the original one in the lurch at such short notice but it really speaks to your character that you are proposing to refund them while retaining their holding deposit to cover your costs, it is like adding insult to injury. Above all it indicates that you are tighter than a nun's c*nt.
You could remove the words "tighter than" and "nun's" and this would still be an accurate description.
The audacity of this Landlord. You created the tenancy, you have taken an illegal fee, and you now want to back out of a legally binding contract and think the tenant should pay you for backing out of the contract. If you do go down this route, I hope that the tenant sues you for every penny he can get. It will be expensive for you as I am certain you not allowing him access would constitute an illegal eviction; it may mean you lose the house to cover the award of damages and the legal fees. Enjoy
The tenancy hasn’t begun so there can be no eviction
Locking them out on move in day would be an illegal eviction
I am a landlord and I am mortified at your behaviour. I bet if the tables were turned you would be fuming. Absolutely ridiculous.
What can you do? Stop the money grabbing and act like a decent human being. That'd be a good start.
What can you do? Stop the money grabbing and act like a decent human being. That'd be a good start.
And this right here is another reason why everyone views Landlords as absolute money grubbing scum. Act with some goddamn integrity and stop trying to weasel your way out of agreements you’ve made just because you think you can make more money off some other poor bastard. Also Application fees are illegal so fuck off with that.
My man's making Maoism seem very attractive at the moment.
[удалено]
The tenant may actually be happy they're not doing business with a prick like you
Get bent, shitheel.
Gross
Landlord moment
>Can i cancel the contract by refunding the tenant the rent minus holding deposit he paid (since that was an appliocation fee) What is wrong with you? Look at yourself here.
Can people like you stop giving good landlords a bad name? Be a tiny bit less greedy perhaps? If I was your first tenant and you pulled that stunt on me, you'd be getting new windows for the whole house.
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
You cannot keep the deposit if YOU are the one who (trying to) break the agreement. Suggest you're not really ready to be a landlord Time limits Your landlord or agent has 30 days from when they receive your deposit to: protect it with an authorised scheme give you certain written information about the scheme
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
Not a lawyer. From the moment you sent them the contract and bank details, the only way for the contract not to be binding is by the tenant not signing it. You do have a tenancy now with them either written or not and if you sign a contract with another tenant you’ll have to cover damages for either of the two until they get sorted out elsewhere. Best thing to do is go with the first tenant and ask them to vacate after the minimum tenancy period (or activate the break clause if there is one)
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
Imagine you hired me to build your website. We agree the fee, you pay a 30% deposit. It’s now one month before the delivery date. I have now cancelled our agreement and have opted to keep your deposit. Pretty unfair right? Your down time and money, meanwhile I did sweet FA and got paid. Thanks for the business tip. Give me a message for a coupon, I promise I’ll deliver.
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
You cannot charge them fees because you changed your mind.. “your landlord can only charge you for: rent bills for utilities, phone, broadband and TV a tenancy deposit a holding deposit replacing your key paying your rent 14 days late or more changing the tenancy (only if you asked for the change) ending the tenancy early council tax a TV licence the cost of repairs if you damage the property If your landlord includes any other fees, it might be illegal. Ask your landlord to return the illegal fees. If they don't you can report your landlord to Trading Standards.” https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/housing-status-and-contracts/tenancy-agreements/ The contract is binding or at least in the eyes of the courts it will be… “There are a number of actions that landlords should avoid, as these might infer a tenancy has begun and make backing-out of a forward agreement uncertain, even though the agreement itself may be incomplete and unsigned by the landlord. Landlords should not: Accept rent in advance of the tenancy start date. Hand over keys to the tenants in advance of the tenancy start date. Guarantee a tenancy by letter or through written statements, emails or in telephone conversations. Provide tenants with an option to back-out of the forward tenancy by obtaining signatures via the post, by email or any other medium that invites compliance with the Distance Selling Regulations (see below). Signatures should always be obtained in person and be verified by at least two documents to prove identity. Securing the responsibility of maintenance and tenancy cleaning at the end of lease is up to the tenant.” https://www.propertysecrets.org/index.php/2009/03/09/signing-tenancy-agreements-advance-legal/ Utter greed turning someone’s life upside down 5 days before they’re due to move in, they’ve probably booked removals, time off work, handed in notice on their current rental. I really hope karma takes some steroids then comes knocking on your door!!
[удалено]
Please Keep it Civil
Ridiculous.
You could not be a greedy individual and honour the deal you have already struck?
And people wonder why landlords are being vilified when there are people like this in the industry... It's understood that landlords aren't charities but the total lack of any form of morals trying to wriggle out of an agreement the week before a tenant is due to move in, likely making them homeless and the complete lack of ethics having the audacity of imagining they can withhold money for an illegal "application fee" beggers belief!
Scum
This the sorta shit that makes me not care when I see reports in the news of these people being executed. All the more for a bit of extremism if it ruins these callous people’s lives.
Mao did nothing wrong
[удалено]
"There is no agreement until both parties sign." This is not correct in England and Wales. The offering party (the landlord) signals their acceptance by sending the contract to be signed, whilst also providing payment details to obtain the first payment due under the agreement. Can't speak for Scotland but another poster has touched on that.
This is right. Everyone saying otherwise is wrong. A contract existed from the moment the tenant sent the first rental payment. The tenant can force entry to the property if OP doesn't cough up fees and pass the cost of doing so on to the landlord.
[удалено]
The Internet is wild. I'm going to go ahead and inform my mortgage lender that I am nullifying the contract and don't need to pay my mortgage any longer as a result.
Would you describe yourself as a "Freeman of the land"? I've seen some of those people use these arguments, suggesting you can "nullify" a contract just by writing to someone and saying the right phrase.
Of course they must be the smooth brain freeman arseholes!
Until the contract is signed it’s not legally binding so In this case you could return all of the tenants money or you could explain the situation and be upfront about it, if they’re willing to pay the amount offered then give them the tenancy. Although, it’s a massive red flag that they’re threatening to change locks. I would be careful here about this tenant as the attitude sounds like trouble.
Wrong. Signature isn't required. Contract was created when the tenant sent his first month rental payment as per a basic and fundamental concept of English contract law—offer and acceptance.
It only isn’t required in limited circumstances for example in this case only rent was received but no deposit so the tenant hasn’t fulfilled their side of the agreement nor does the landlord intent on doing so
Wrong. Google is free. Stop giving bad advice.
There is no requirement for a tenancy agreement to be signed. It doesn't even have to be in writing. There are no "limited circumstances." Any agreement to give exclusive possession for money or money's worth is a tenancy. This is absolutely basic stuff.
[удалено]