Old house sale failed; can we cancel tenancy of new house?

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

    #16
    Originally posted by donnabailey View Post
    also should the garentor have signed the agreement as they signed on a seperate document before we signed the tennency agreement
    and should they have recived a copy of the tennency agreement ?
    non of us seem to have recived any photo copies or original copies.
    If the guarantor hasn't seen the tenancy agreement, then there is a good chance the guarantor could argue it's validity if they were ever claimed against.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
      If the guarantor hasn't seen the tenancy agreement, then there is a good chance the guarantor could argue it's validity if they were ever claimed against.
      You can't actually be held responsible in law to guarantee conditions/clauses within a document of which you haven't had sight.
      The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by donnabailey View Post
        they have got us to fill in a surrend form and made us pay for it where does this actually leave us this ???
        If the surrender ['form'] is executed as a deed (as it should be) the agent cannot charge a fee for it unless they are also a qualified lawyer.

        Comment


          #19
          rent money

          can i request any of the rent money back from the landlord as we have payed a full months rent of £700 on 2-7-10.we had done a surrender notice form and a new tennet has taken over on the 6-7-10 paying the landlord rent of £700 rent also we have recived a cheque for the bond of £800 but are wondering about the rent as there is 3 weeks that we did not need to pay

          Comment


            #20
            It is quite normal to take cash for the deposit, so nothing suspicious about that at all.
            Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
              You can't actually be held responsible in law to guarantee conditions/clauses within a document of which you haven't had sight.
              That's not true, (assuming the form of guarantee has been properly executed), you guaranatee whatever obligations you agree to guarantee, whether or not you have seen the underlying agreement containing those obligations.

              Donnabailey: don't panic.

              1st:

              Even the worst case scenario is not as bad as you may fear. Given the unfortunate option of being able to afford only your mortgage repayments or the rent, if it were me I'd pay the mortgage repayments.

              The consequences of not paying the rent are that LL could come after you, but it is more likely he'd choose to terminate the tenancy, and possibly chase you for damages (which would be far less than 12 months rent), but I think this would be unlikely unless he was particularly incensed.

              The consequences of not paying your mortgage repayments are that you could lose your home.

              2nd:

              Ask to speak directly with the LL of the rented property, and explain your predicament. If he's commercially astute he may prefer to find a new more willing tenant (able to afford the rental) than keep you as a reluctant one (unable to afford it).

              Comment


                #22
                OP; go to citizen's advice about getting a rent refund, or consumer direct helpline.

                It has been said on this forum that a LL cannot receive rent from 2 different parties on one property for the same period of time, so you would be due a refund in that case

                But I have also read something that contradicts the above, but cannot remember when/where.
                All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

                * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

                You can search the forums here:

                Comment


                  #23
                  Its a bit late now, but your tenancy should have been signed as a deed if it was in advance. If it was not signed as a deed, it would not have carried as much weight regarding your liability to continue with it. There are previous posts on this forum regarding this.
                  All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

                  * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

                  You can search the forums here:

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Bel View Post
                    your tenancy should have been signed as a deed if it was in advance.
                    Why? The only requirement for a deed is is the term of the tenancy it cerates exceeds 3 years.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by dominic View Post
                      Why? The only requirement for a deed is is the term of the tenancy it creates exceeds 3 years.
                      Or if offer/acceptance are not accompanied by contractual consideration.
                      JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                      1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                      2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                      3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                      4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                        Or if offer/acceptance are not accompanied by contractual consideration.
                        But then would it be a tenancy, as no rent would be payable?

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Yes- rent is usual but it's not essential. In fact, rent is often thought essential only in order to constitute contractual consideration!
                          JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                          1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                          2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                          3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                          4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                            Yes- rent is usual but it's not essential. In fact, rent is often thought essential only in order to constitute contractual consideration!
                            Yes, a little digging and I found this case:

                            Fatac Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2002) 3 NZLR 648 at (41)

                            not binding as New Zealand, but it supports your view, that rent is only required to satisfy the contractual; consideration point, so if it is made by deed the only ingredients are:

                            a. exclusive possession; and
                            b. definite term.

                            However I know lawcruncher has a different view on this. S/He seems to think a tenancy may be created by deed *or* with the above ingredients + rent.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              A better case reference might be a 1988 Court of Appeal decision: Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold and W.J. Arnold Company Ltd.
                              See http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean.

                              The Letting Agreement had stated that T "shall be at liberty to remain at the property as Licensee and to trade therefrom...without payment of rent or any other fee to [L] save that [T] shall pay all outgoings so long as it is in occupation of the property".

                              The CA decision referred back to an earlier finding by the same Court in previous 1987 proceedings between the same parties that "the..Agreement created a lease and not a mere licence" (i.e. despite the absence of any monetary rent).
                              JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                              1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                              2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                              3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                              4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by dominic View Post
                                Yes, a little digging and I found this case:

                                Fatac Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2002) 3 NZLR 648 at (41)

                                not binding as New Zealand, but it supports your view, that rent is only required to satisfy the contractual; consideration point, so if it is made by deed the only ingredients are:

                                a. exclusive possession; and
                                b. definite term.

                                However I know lawcruncher has a different view on this. S/He seems to think a tenancy may be created by deed *or* with the above ingredients + rent.
                                Lawcruncher's view is the same as yours, surely. To create a Lease/Letting at law demands use of a Deed unless:
                                a. there is contractual consideration (= premium or rent or both or T's paying outgoings); AND
                                b. the term does not exceed three years.
                                JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                                1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                                2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                                3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                                4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X