Letting agents won't let go!
August 16, 2009 4:25 PM Subscribe
UKRentalfilter: Can my landlord end his agreement with the letting agents if one of two tenants under the current contract wants to stay in the property?
Flatmate and I have lived here for two years, he was here before and I moved in when his original co-renter moved out. The letting agents issued a new contract with both our names on it. Now my flatmate wants to go, and I want to stay. I have a new co-renter lined up and my landlord is happy for me to stay on in this new arrangement. However, he doesn't want to stay with the letting agent who have been (mis)managing the property since my flatmate first arrived.
Landlord tried to get out of his contract with them last year, by issuing us with a new, private contract and telling them we were moving out. They phoned and visited for two weeks until they'd established that we hadn't actually moved out and therefore wouldn't let him break his contract with them. I think it's different this time because one of us actually is moving out so a new contract will have to be drawn up anyway, but he's intimated by the agents and thinks they will withhold the deposit and charge him a massive fee unless they think we've both moved out.
He's offered to issue a new contract with me and the new co-signer, as long as I move my stuff out for when the agent visits for the final inspection/handing over of keys. I would then move back in again under the new contract.
This all seems like a ridiculous hassle to me, I really want to stay in the flat (great price/location - not easy to find in the centre of the city), is this really the only way we can wing it? Current flatmate and I pay half the rent each, monthly, direct to the landlord's account. We call him direct if there are problems with the flat and he sorts them out - we never speak to the letting agents. A lawyer won't help me much because the contract in dispute is between landlord and agents, not him and me, can anyone shed any light on the situation? Thanks!
Flatmate and I have lived here for two years, he was here before and I moved in when his original co-renter moved out. The letting agents issued a new contract with both our names on it. Now my flatmate wants to go, and I want to stay. I have a new co-renter lined up and my landlord is happy for me to stay on in this new arrangement. However, he doesn't want to stay with the letting agent who have been (mis)managing the property since my flatmate first arrived.
Landlord tried to get out of his contract with them last year, by issuing us with a new, private contract and telling them we were moving out. They phoned and visited for two weeks until they'd established that we hadn't actually moved out and therefore wouldn't let him break his contract with them. I think it's different this time because one of us actually is moving out so a new contract will have to be drawn up anyway, but he's intimated by the agents and thinks they will withhold the deposit and charge him a massive fee unless they think we've both moved out.
He's offered to issue a new contract with me and the new co-signer, as long as I move my stuff out for when the agent visits for the final inspection/handing over of keys. I would then move back in again under the new contract.
This all seems like a ridiculous hassle to me, I really want to stay in the flat (great price/location - not easy to find in the centre of the city), is this really the only way we can wing it? Current flatmate and I pay half the rent each, monthly, direct to the landlord's account. We call him direct if there are problems with the flat and he sorts them out - we never speak to the letting agents. A lawyer won't help me much because the contract in dispute is between landlord and agents, not him and me, can anyone shed any light on the situation? Thanks!
clarification:
1. you could be culpable for a small proportion of the damages if you follow the owner's plan and a judgement is awarded. There is small possibility this would ever get to court, but a big possibility the agents would name everyone under the sun if they brought suit.
2. if you have super trust in the owner, and you have it in writing you could move back in, and he is paying your moving and hotel costs, and that total cost would be less than a lawyer to fight the agents in another forum and break the contract that way.... then your gut is your best guess here.
I might do it if I had multiple assurances. I wrote in to highlight the disadvantages and risks perceived.
posted by jbenben at 4:57 PM on August 16, 2009
1. you could be culpable for a small proportion of the damages if you follow the owner's plan and a judgement is awarded. There is small possibility this would ever get to court, but a big possibility the agents would name everyone under the sun if they brought suit.
2. if you have super trust in the owner, and you have it in writing you could move back in, and he is paying your moving and hotel costs, and that total cost would be less than a lawyer to fight the agents in another forum and break the contract that way.... then your gut is your best guess here.
I might do it if I had multiple assurances. I wrote in to highlight the disadvantages and risks perceived.
posted by jbenben at 4:57 PM on August 16, 2009
Best answer: You have no contract with the letting agent. Your contract is with the landlord, and the landlord has a contract with the agency to act on his behalf.The relationship between the landlord and the agent has broken down and you are now caught in the middle.
The landlord has, somewhere along the line and probably unwittingly, signed a contract agreeing to pay X renewal fees each time the tenants renew the contract. He/She doesn't want to pay this so he is trying to convince the agent that you've moved and they're not due any commission.
Danger for the owner: The agent finds out that you're still there and they bill / take the Landlord to court for the fees they think that they're due. Realistically, they probably won't take him to court (Renewal fees are a hot topic right now - see OFT v. Foxtons) but they might bother him a lot.
Danger for you: You go to all the effort of hiding your stuff, the agent threatens the landlord, landlord gets worried and issues all tenants an s21 (no fault notice seeking possession of the property) to save himself the effort of the fight with the letting agent and you're out anyway.
Really, it is the owners problem, and it's unreasonable to expect you to pretend you don't live there just so the owner can save a few quid. Also, once you say you're moving, the agent will want to start the check out / return of deposit procedures (Your deposit is protected correctly I assume?) and once that doesn't happen, they'll twig and start chasing the landlord.
posted by pixie at 11:03 AM on August 17, 2009
The landlord has, somewhere along the line and probably unwittingly, signed a contract agreeing to pay X renewal fees each time the tenants renew the contract. He/She doesn't want to pay this so he is trying to convince the agent that you've moved and they're not due any commission.
Danger for the owner: The agent finds out that you're still there and they bill / take the Landlord to court for the fees they think that they're due. Realistically, they probably won't take him to court (Renewal fees are a hot topic right now - see OFT v. Foxtons) but they might bother him a lot.
Danger for you: You go to all the effort of hiding your stuff, the agent threatens the landlord, landlord gets worried and issues all tenants an s21 (no fault notice seeking possession of the property) to save himself the effort of the fight with the letting agent and you're out anyway.
Really, it is the owners problem, and it's unreasonable to expect you to pretend you don't live there just so the owner can save a few quid. Also, once you say you're moving, the agent will want to start the check out / return of deposit procedures (Your deposit is protected correctly I assume?) and once that doesn't happen, they'll twig and start chasing the landlord.
posted by pixie at 11:03 AM on August 17, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
I see a host of problems from the get-go (you move out....what is your assurance you can move back in?? also, who pays for your hassle/moving costs/hotel??)
From your post, it seems your deposit is held by the letting agents and not the landlord, correct? That would worry me as a tenant.
I think you have the question and the issues a bit mixed up. It sounds like you are being super super nice all around.
As the owner, who enjoys the long-term benefits of ownership - your owner is responsible for his hassle with the letting agents. He must hire an attorney to deal with this.
The agents sound like fuckers. They may sue your landlord if you follow his plan if they find out down the road he double-crossed them. You could be culpable for the deception if there is a lawsuit. Essentially, the landlord is asking you to accept his risk while he tries to extricate himself from the contract. Not cool.
Which brings me to my next point... if the owner is no longer using the services of the agents, but they are enjoying some benefits... what kind of a contract has the landlord signed? Something that makes him beholden to the agents FOREVER, regardless of length or quality of service??
The whole thing seems dodgy. Are you sure you know the whole story between these two parties?
Don't move out. Sign your new lease with the Owner. Make sure your TOTAL monies on deposit (yours and your new flatmate's) are reflected in the new contract (whether the owner has your deposit money back from the agents or not...) and continue on.
This problem is for the owner to sort out.
One day, when he sells the property and makes a profit on his investment, will you see a cut? No.
There is a better way for the owner to solve this without putting you at risk. Make him find it.
posted by jbenben at 4:50 PM on August 16, 2009