I will preface my query with the comment that, as a (good) landlord, I'm getting increasingly furious and frustated about tenant's rights as a result of the experiences of my daughter:
a) Three weeks ago my daughter and three other young girls viewed and liked a property in Finsbury park which they wished to let as a joint tenant.
b) They approached the Estate agent who took a combined total of £600 from them as a "credit checking fee and holding deposit"
c) They were then told (in writing) they had passed the credit checks and the landlord agreed to grant them a tenancy.
d) They were sent a final tenancy agreement with a start date of 30 August 2013. They paid the first month of rent and deposit (a total of nearly £5000). Clearly there was an intent on both sides to create lefgal relations, and in my view such relations were created.
e) Two of the four attended the office of the agent and signed the agreement. Procedures for collection of keys were arranged.
f) As far as I am concerned an agreement is in place for all practical purposes.
g) Today they were approached by the agent who states that:
gi) The landolord has decided that he wishes the tenancy to start a week and a bit earlier (i.e this next weekend) and that rent should be paid from that date (an extra £1000).
gii) He is not prepared to sign the agreement unless it is re-dated
giv) Because two parts of the 4 of the tenant have not signed the agreement, and because the LL has not yet signed the agreement they are allowed to do this (they say).
My daughter declines their offer, and consequently they say that a tenancy is refused. Having finally ended her last tenancy, she will be homeless as of a week and a half.
I am aware of Street v Mountford on one aspect of what constitutes an agreement. I am so furious by these tactics (that give us landlords a terrible reputation) that I am considering backing my daughter to take the s___ts to court, but any sage advice or tactics or points of law would be appreciated.
PS. The agent refuses to reveal the LL's name or address - as they say there is no agreement so they do not have to. Who is the relevant party to serve with any legal threats here?
a) Three weeks ago my daughter and three other young girls viewed and liked a property in Finsbury park which they wished to let as a joint tenant.
b) They approached the Estate agent who took a combined total of £600 from them as a "credit checking fee and holding deposit"
c) They were then told (in writing) they had passed the credit checks and the landlord agreed to grant them a tenancy.
d) They were sent a final tenancy agreement with a start date of 30 August 2013. They paid the first month of rent and deposit (a total of nearly £5000). Clearly there was an intent on both sides to create lefgal relations, and in my view such relations were created.
e) Two of the four attended the office of the agent and signed the agreement. Procedures for collection of keys were arranged.
f) As far as I am concerned an agreement is in place for all practical purposes.
g) Today they were approached by the agent who states that:
gi) The landolord has decided that he wishes the tenancy to start a week and a bit earlier (i.e this next weekend) and that rent should be paid from that date (an extra £1000).
gii) He is not prepared to sign the agreement unless it is re-dated
giv) Because two parts of the 4 of the tenant have not signed the agreement, and because the LL has not yet signed the agreement they are allowed to do this (they say).
My daughter declines their offer, and consequently they say that a tenancy is refused. Having finally ended her last tenancy, she will be homeless as of a week and a half.
I am aware of Street v Mountford on one aspect of what constitutes an agreement. I am so furious by these tactics (that give us landlords a terrible reputation) that I am considering backing my daughter to take the s___ts to court, but any sage advice or tactics or points of law would be appreciated.
PS. The agent refuses to reveal the LL's name or address - as they say there is no agreement so they do not have to. Who is the relevant party to serve with any legal threats here?