Can he make us pay?

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

    #16
    Yes we are moving in to the new house on the 16th Dec. The tenancy agreement starts on the 1st Dec (we signed it on Monday). We could always move in on the 16th Dec, it was just when the tenancy agreement started in the contract. Now we will have to pay January's rent on the 1st Jan, rather than on the 16th as we wanted, as it is impossible for us to move in before the 16th (have to finish work at old job). It's why we didn't want the AST to begin earlier as we are not able to move in before then and still have to pay rent on the place we are in now until the 17th Dec. So we have to pay the rent for the first two weeks where we are now and have to pay for the first two weeks of Dec in the new place even though we can't move in and the agency was aware of that!!! Does that help?

    Comment


      #17
      I'm very sorry that I appear to be misunderstanding the situation.

      Ultimately, was it your choice to sign a tenancy agreement which commenced on 1 December 2006?

      Comment


        #18
        We didn't really have a choice in the end. My new job starts the 4th Jan, and I am away for xmas from 22nd Dec til the 2nd Jan. So we have from the 18th til the 21st to get settled so when we come back after xmas the house isn't a bombsite of boxes. I have to work out my notice in my current job so can't move in until the 16th, so that is when we wanted the tenancy to start. Landlord (who is abroad so we can't speak to him directly) wants tenancy to start from 1st Dec, so effectively we have to pay for two weeks that we cannot live in the property (while paying rent on the property we are in at the moment). We only had a few weeks to get somewhere sorted, and when we learned it had to start from the 1st Dec, it was too late to start the process all over again of finding somewhere to live, so we had no choice. It was sign it to start the 1st Dec or have nowhere to live.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by kareneogorman View Post
          We didn't really have a choice in the end. My new job starts the 4th Jan, and I am away for xmas from 22nd Dec til the 2nd Jan. So we have from the 18th til the 21st to get settled so when we come back after xmas the house isn't a bombsite of boxes. I have to work out my notice in my current job so can't move in until the 16th, so that is when we wanted the tenancy to start. Landlord (who is abroad so we can't speak to him directly) wants tenancy to start from 1st Dec, so effectively we have to pay for two weeks that we cannot live in the property (while paying rent on the property we are in at the moment). We only had a few weeks to get somewhere sorted, and when we learned it had to start from the 1st Dec, it was too late to start the process all over again of finding somewhere to live, so we had no choice. It was sign it to start the 1st Dec or have nowhere to live.
          Hi Kareneogorman,
          The holding deposit you paid will of course go towards the first months rent. However, if you signed from the 1st of December, then that is the starting date of your contract. It was always like a poker game; the landlord risked losing you as tenant and you risked losing the accommodation.

          Comment


            #20
            All consumers have rights, and the agency should have treated the applicants much better.
            1. The consumer is entitled to receive a receipt for his monies and the basis on which it has been taken, i.e. subject to contract" or not.
            2. Terms such as money being "non-returnable" is unfair under the UTCCRs, should the applicants fail to go ahead.
            3. Unless you were given, and it should have been in writing, the terms on which your money was accepted, then the agent might find his local Trading Standards Officer wanting to know a lot more about his methods!
            What I can't understand is that I have posted on this type of problem before on quite a few occasions and some posters seem to think landlords and agents can just do as they please, and that applicants have to "prove" something - they don't, that's the landlord's responsibility! The landlord has entered into a contract to let by taking money from the applicant; he can't then start varying the terms under which the money was accepted, and he has to prove the terms, not the other way round!
            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


              #21
              Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
              All consumers have rights, and the agency should have treated the applicants much better.
              1. The consumer is entitled to receive a receipt for his monies and the basis on which it has been taken, i.e. subject to contract" or not.
              2. Terms such as money being "non-returnable" is unfair under the UTCCRs, should the applicants fail to go ahead.
              3. Unless you were given, and it should have been in writing, the terms on which your money was accepted, then the agent might find his local Trading Standards Officer wanting to know a lot more about his methods!
              What I can't understand is that I have posted on this type of problem before on quite a few occasions and some posters seem to think landlords and agents can just do as they please, and that applicants have to "prove" something - they don't, that's the landlord's responsibility! The landlord has entered into a contract to let by taking money from the applicant; he can't then start varying the terms under which the money was accepted, and he has to prove the terms, not the other way round!
              In a nutshell; Karen, you have a justified complaint against the agent; if you want to persue it, first make a written complaint to them, or the landlord if that doesn't work; if the agent was a member of arla, naea or rics you could complain to their association, or you could probably take them to court. Unfortunately, justice comes at a price, only you know if its worth it.
              All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

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

              You can search the forums here:

              Comment


                #22
                I don't think I'd be the only regular poster surprised to learn that this agent is regulated. On the agent's headed paper, what regulatory body is the agent a member of?

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X