Docusigned a tenancy agreement earlier in the day

[Wright76]

Thanks for that ktc.

I figured there must be some legislation somewhere on its validity since there's no witness or confirmation the actual tenant signed it.

I still think the tenant copy should be signed in advance by the landlord else who's to say the terms weren't changed by time it was returned

[mariner]

AFAIK AST contracts are not subject to Distance Selling Regs.
Document Verisign is a method for confirming a digital sig is valid, I assume similar to entering your PIN for access to funds etc.

[KTC]

I still think the tenant copy should be signed in advance by the landlord else who's to say the terms weren't changed by time it was returned

That's part of the system, that the document being signed is the same one, and crytongraphic signature embedded to show if the downloaded document has been altered or not. The provider also keep a copy so no parties can go "whoops lost it, it never happened".

[Claymore]

I find this whole scenario crazy. Why on earth would you sign a tenancy agreement when you haven't even seen the room?

OP, I hope the Landlord doesn't sue you - my gut feeling is he won't. But, make sure you learn from this and don't go signing any contracts again before you have seen the accommodation.

[debjitdutta]

I think the LL is going to sue me. I have come across a featured ad in Spareroom that the LL has put on for the same room to be available from 9th July. ( my tenancy end date was 8th July )

Lets see.

[JK0]

I think the LL is going to sue me. I have come across a featured ad in Spareroom that the LL has put on for the same room to be available from 9th July. ( my tenancy end date was 8th July )

Lets see.

Then I would save that advert with today's date somewhere if possible. (Press PrtScn then open paint, control v, and save file.) When you get to court, you can show judge that the guy made no effort at all to relet it from 9th June.

[jpkeates]

I agree with that - the landlord has to mitigate their loss and they're making no attempt to do that.
As the tenancy didn't actually start, there's no need to wait until then - so the landlord is making your situation a lot easier.

[MisterB]

to all the legal beagles, or with more experience. what would happen if the 'tenant' turned up at the property anytime after the proposed start of the tenancy? would the landlord then have to let them have access as there is a contract? is that why the landlord has readvertised 'after' allowing one month??

[JK0]

to all the legal beagles, or with more experience. what would happen if the 'tenant' turned up at the property anytime after the proposed start of the tenancy? would the landlord then have to let them have access as there is a contract? is that why the landlord has readvertised 'after' allowing one month??

He would have to show up with the cash though, wouldn't he?

[jpkeates]

to all the legal beagles, or with more experience. what would happen if the 'tenant' turned up at the property anytime after the proposed start of the tenancy? would the landlord then have to let them have access as there is a contract? is that why the landlord has readvertised 'after' allowing one month??

That would be worse for everyone.

The landlord has contracted to allow the tenant to rent the property (while the rent isn't paid, it's owed, so the contract is good).
The tenancy would then start - which means the landlord would have to give two month's notice and the tenant one ending at the end of a rental period - so three month's at minimum.

In reality, the landlord would simply decline to allow the tenant access (paying or not I'd guess).
The tenancy hasn't begun, so the tenant would have to sue the landlord for breach of contract or to secure access (which is laughably unlikely).