Tenants only available to sign the AST on different dates

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

  • Tenants only available to sign the AST on different dates

    Hi
    I have a property which will be let to university students from 01 September 2013 (6-7 months time). They are happy to pay a retainer (half rent for Jul & Aug 2013) & a deposit which will be protected.
    I normally have the AST signed by all parties (the tenants, landlord & witnesses) at the same time and the deposit is usually taken at the same time so it is quite straightforward.
    However, as they are currently in different parts of the country in their year out (and one of them is currently abroad) I cannot do this. What I need to know is:
    1. Is it OK for the tenants to all sign the same AST it on different dates?
    2. Does it need to be witnessed and if so, can it be witnessed separately for each individual tenant?
    3. Can it be signed by any of the tenants after the tenancy start date if any of them wish to arrive later?
    4. Alternatively, does it need to be dated individually for the signing of each tenant or can we just state that the agreement is made on a specified date without having a separate date for the signings and let them just sign it individually when they are available to meet?
    5. Do all of the tenants need to have signed the contract before the deposit is taken and protected?
    I would be very grateful for some help and some examples if possible.
    Many thanks in anticipation.

  • #2
    1) Yes
    2) A tenancy under 3 years does not even need to be in writing, so 'witnessed' is not an issue
    3) I'm not sure - but I would guess yes as long as at least one of them (for they are collectively 'the tenant') signs beforehand
    4) See 3
    5) No, see 2 - no need for written agreement so signatures irrelevant. Deposit must be protected within 30 days of receiving it - that includes any part of a deposit.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
      2) A tenancy under 3 years does not even need to be in writing, so 'witnessed' is not an issue
      I have always believed that any tenancy which does not commence immediately after being signed is best witnessed so that it is signed AS A DEED
      This gives all parties greater protection that the tenancy is fully committed to.

      Not having it signed as a deed, if the tenants do not show on the appointed day, the tenancy will not commence and all the LL will have is the first month's rent.

      This is from memory and I have not checked it out
      All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

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

      You can search the forums here:

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bel View Post
        Not having it signed as a deed, if the tenants do not show on the appointed day, the tenancy will not commence and all the LL will have is the first month's rent.
        I would guess that the tenancy will not commence regardless of it being a deed. There is no tenancy without tenants taking possession, only an agreement for a tenancy. So I believe having it done as a deed offers more security for not sticking to an agreement for a tenancy. would still have to mitigate though
        All views posted reflect my personal opinion only and do not constitute professional advice which I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to provide.

        Comment


        • #5
          3. I would consider 3 a dangerous tactic. ( The assumption is obviously that this is a joint tenancy). If one or more dont turn up, the ones who did sign and turn up are liable for the whole of the rent. Can they afford it though? Has each one been credit checked for the whole amount or 'their share'? do you have guarantors and is the guarantee explicit that they are jointly responsible for the whole of the rent and not limited to 'their share'.
          All views posted reflect my personal opinion only and do not constitute professional advice which I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to provide.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MSaxp View Post
            3. I would consider 3 a dangerous tactic. ( The assumption is obviously that this is a joint tenancy). If one or more dont turn up, the ones who did sign and turn up are liable for the whole of the rent. Can they afford it though? Has each one been credit checked for the whole amount or 'their share'? do you have guarantors and is the guarantee explicit that they are jointly responsible for the whole of the rent and not limited to 'their share'.
            I would think this is wrong (though I would be interested in what lawcruncher and westminster think). If five individuals are to enter into a contract jointly then one signing on their own doesn't bind anybody.

            As to the OP's question, English law is flexible enough to allow an agreement to be dated when all the parties agree it should be, so just agree to date it when the last party signs. I'm somewhat confused by your reference to witnesses though. Is your tenancy agreement being signed as a deed?
            Disclaimer:

            The above represents my own opinion, derived from personal knowledge and should not be relied upon as definitive or accurate advice. It is offered free of charge and may contain errors or omissions or be an inaccurate opinion of the law. I accept no liability for any loss or damage suffered as a result of relying on the above.

            Comment


            • #7
              You might have a point there. My point was that some of the joint tenants signing and moving in, they can't deny liability for the whole tenancy on the basis some of the intended tenants didn't move in.

              I agree some advice from lawcruncher or Westminster would be useful. I think we also agree it's probably not advisable for the op to proceed this way
              All views posted reflect my personal opinion only and do not constitute professional advice which I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to provide.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MSaxp View Post
                3. I would consider 3 a dangerous tactic. ( The assumption is obviously that this is a joint tenancy). If one or more dont turn up, the ones who did sign and turn up are liable for the whole of the rent. Can they afford it though? Has each one been credit checked for the whole amount or 'their share'? do you have guarantors and is the guarantee explicit that they are jointly responsible for the whole of the rent and not limited to 'their share'.
                As the prospective tenants were sourced via an agent who has carried out references (and I assume cerdit checks) who provided me with all their details including a guarantor for each tenant. I will get the guarantor sign a separate agreement each and the agreement will state that they are jointly responsible for the whole of the rent and not just limited to share of the person they are guaranteeing for.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks for your answers

                  Thanks everyone for your answers - looks like I may have to carry out some more research, but thank you for taking the time to reply.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MSaxp View Post
                    I would guess that the tenancy will not commence regardless of it being a deed. There is no tenancy without tenants taking possession, only an agreement for a tenancy. So I believe having it done as a deed offers more security for not sticking to an agreement for a tenancy. would still have to mitigate though
                    See here

                    http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/201...ned-as-a-deed/

                    Previous thread

                    http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...-needed-at-all
                    All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

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

                    You can search the forums here:

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    • if we haven't signed the renewal are we still liable?
                      Lexy333
                      Our 6 month short term assured tenancy agreement ended on the 2nd August. We are with a reputable agency. We were invited to renew for a further 6 months back in July and were asked to email our confirmation that we wish to renew in writing. This I did. We were sent the renewal tenancy to sign. We have...
                      22-08-2017, 14:00 PM
                    • Reply to if we haven't signed the renewal are we still liable?
                      mariner
                      I would say your original AST continues as SPT.
                      If now a new verbal AST, you may have a new fixed term and you cannot serve NTQ during fixed term (6 months?).
                      Talk to LL directly, rather than LA.
                      Why did you agree to a new AST, rather than request rolling over to SPT....
                      23-08-2017, 00:30 AM
                    • 6 year deposit claim
                      MaliaZ
                      Hi guys, I know that a tenant can claim a penalty on an unprotected deposit but I just wondered when the 6 year clock starts ticking.
                      22-08-2017, 16:43 PM
                    • Reply to 6 year deposit claim
                      mariner
                      As memory fades over time, can someone provide a 'sticky' for dates when key elements of LL&T Legislation changed? I believe Apr 2012 predates later deposit timescales.
                      23-08-2017, 00:08 AM
                    • NTQ during fixed term?
                      vpltd
                      Hi,
                      Can a LL issue a valid NTQ during the six-month fixed term of an AST agreement?
                      (A residential let in England.)
                      VPL.
                      11-08-2017, 14:53 PM
                    • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                      Wright76
                      It's worth noting that guidance is under part 4 where tenant obviously is given notice to end of a period and therefore apportionment would not be applicable.

                      The reference to the notice to quit ending the tenancy on the notice date does not change the fact that it obviously does however,...
                      22-08-2017, 23:24 PM
                    • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                      Wright76
                      I think thats exactly what the section I have just quoted confirms.

                      And thereafter, if you choose not to accept they are leaving as a result of the section 21 you must insist on a notice to quit or await a court ordering possession (where you will be ordered to apportion anyway)
                      ...
                      22-08-2017, 23:13 PM
                    • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                      mariner
                      A lot of energy has been expended in this debate. It has been suggested a LL has no need to take Court action if T apparently vacates after receiving a s21 but with no Notice. LL cannot safely assume has vacated without Court confirmation, to avoid a T allegation of 'illegal eviction'. Equally I would...
                      22-08-2017, 23:00 PM
                    • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                      Wright76
                      If someone could copy and paste section 21 (4) a and b (I'm really not technical!), the law seems to recognise that a tenancy CAN end as a result of a section 21 and before a possession hearing.

                      21(4)b........the tenancy could be brought to an end by notice to quit given by the landlord...
                      22-08-2017, 22:38 PM
                    • Reply to 6 year deposit claim
                      KTC
                      Assuming that the money originally paid had been used as a deposit for the single tenant tenancy, then 6 years and 30 days from when the 2012 tenancy started. And... if that was a fixed term tenancy, then 6 years and 30 days for any subseqent renwal and likewise from when it went periodic.
                      22-08-2017, 22:22 PM
                    Working...
                    X