Deposits not held for security

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by purple_rain View Post
    Would providing the receipt as evidence with the T&Cs on and showing that I've signed nothing prior to this be enough?
    Since I was never a litigator I cannot say for sure, but I would guess it would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • purple_rain
    replied
    Would providing the receipt as evidence with the T&Cs on and showing that I've signed nothing prior to this be enough?

    Thank you again for being so helpful

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by purple_rain View Post
    I paid my holding deposit before any terms and conditions were set up. Only upon seeing the receipt did I realise that the deposit is non- refundable. There have been no said obligations of the landlord. So where does that leave me to get my money back?
    So long as you can prove it, quite good.

    Go to this page http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...rms/oft356.pdf and look at paragraphs

    3.37-3.43
    3.67-3.69
    3.85

    and also at page 79

    Leave a comment:


  • purple_rain
    replied
    I paid my holding deposit before any terms and conditions were set up. Only upon seeing the receipt did I realise that the deposit is non- refundable. There have been no said obligations of the landlord. So where does that leave me to get my money back?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by Brixtonia View Post
    Can the landlord take the "administration fee" route? Then the agreement is with the landlord.
    It may be possible to draw up something, but it would have to be carefully worded. On the one hand you may inadvertently create a contract for a tenancy and on the other a contract that would fail because it is deemed unfair.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hooper
    replied
    Can the landlord take the "administration fee" route? Then the agreement is with the landlord.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perplexed
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    1.If an agent or landlord accepts money too early that may bind the landlord before the landlord should be bound

    2.If there is no obligation to the tenant any money paid is repayable on demand

    The problem in all property negotiations is this:

    A. Neither party is bound to the other until there is a contract

    B. If no contract is concluded neither party is liable for any expense or loss that may be incurred by the other.

    You cannot get round B. Property lawyers have had a go, but no workable scheme has emerged to square the circle.
    I believe if the receipt is carefully worded, it can be shown that there is a contract because on taking the deposit the agent/landlord agrees to stop marketing the property. Obviously, if the tenant then fails the referencing or backs out, the landlord will have missed the oppostunity to let the property to another applicant, which is why a holding deposit was taken in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Summer
    replied
    On the same note, The tenant was permitted to use the dryer and shower downstairs also the garden which was accessed through the ground floor (where the landlord lived), the L is saying even though the house has had 2 kitchens from the start she would have signed a Lodger agreement (as she would have had access and free use of the whole house). Does this make things more difficult for the T.

    Leave a comment:


  • Summer
    replied
    Sorry I dont mean for this to drag on, but are there particular rules as in this scenorio if the landlord lived in the same property, meaning the T is at an advantage point, or is the situation no different.

    From what I remember the house was not converted to Flats.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Summer View Post
    I understand this, but what happends if the tenant was never available to sign, and in all honesty the T was very careless with her £, she handed over a sum of money without signing a contract or even collecting a key.

    So, again do you not think the L has a valid argument in this headache.
    Yes and no
    Yes, there is a valid tenancy, created by T's actions in paying rent and taking occupation.
    No, so far as concerns the restriction on occupation which L seeks- nothing in writing means that it's not binding on T.

    Leave a comment:


  • Summer
    replied
    I understand this, but what happends if the tenant was never available to sign, and in all honesty the T was very careless with her £, she handed over a sum of money without signing a contract or even collecting a key.

    So, again do you not think the L has a valid argument in this headache.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    If there's no written AST, there are no tenancy obligations/restrictions clearly applicable to the letting. L could not restrict co-occupation by the boyfriend. This highlights the unwisdom of giving possession without a written AST.

    Leave a comment:


  • Summer
    replied
    Yes sir, the tenant did move in, and stayed for 7 days.

    I feel as though I am stuck in the middle though. They are both very good friends of mine, I recommended the T to the L.

    The T has decided to fill a Money Claim Online Order thingy. But I advised her that I dont think she's got a leg to stand on, as she's the one that decided to terminate the tenancy on her own will, gave no notice, but her argument is she was never told at the start that her boyfriend was not allowed to stay over. She reckons that her rights as a Tenant were infringed by the L.

    The Landlord is sitting on the fence and only refunded her a week's rent back, and retained what he thinks he deserves for the period the property remained empty.

    I think I need to read into an AST then, and find out whether the L is overlooking the rights of T.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    An AST does not need to be in writing; even an (appropriately-evidenced) oral letting arrangement is capable of creating an AST.

    So did T ever move-in? If so, that's quite good evidence of an AST and a contractual obligation on T.

    Leave a comment:


  • Summer
    replied
    " Money on account of rent "

    How does this apply to a situation, if the landlord has taken it in full (as Reservation and a Month's rent), No contract has been drawn at all, nothing in writing to confirm £ was taken as reservation, tenant simply had no time to sit with Landlord to sign Agreement.

    Then, Tenant terminates the "verbal" contract after a week due to a dispute regarding a rule enforced by the Landlord about not permitting guests to overstay the night.

    Again nothing on writing for landlord to verify this, but his argument is that it would have been included in the contract that the tenant did not "bother" to sign.

    Nevertheless, is the tenants money repayable on demand; as a contract has not been signed and there is no legal basis to hold the money, other then what was agreed verbally with the tenant.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X