Landlord raised rent after holding deposit paid
Discussion
Hi all,
Just wondering if any of you can help me on this. We paid a holding deposit of £580 on a property last week. Everything was accepted, and preparations were made to move out/get references etc. I have now just been informed that the landlord has decided to raise the rent by an extra £100.
We have not signed anything, but there is an email sent to us by the agent clearly showing the agreed rent, and the appropriate holding deposit to pay in order to secure the property. The deposit was paid following that email.
I'm just wondering if this is legally acceptable, it seems that the holding deposit almost means nothing. I suspect that someone else has gone and offered more for the property, therefore the landlord is rejecting us regardless of having supposedly taken the property off the market following our holding deposit.
Any advice on this, or do I need to suck it up and accept the fact that this is just the way things work.
Thanks
Just wondering if any of you can help me on this. We paid a holding deposit of £580 on a property last week. Everything was accepted, and preparations were made to move out/get references etc. I have now just been informed that the landlord has decided to raise the rent by an extra £100.
We have not signed anything, but there is an email sent to us by the agent clearly showing the agreed rent, and the appropriate holding deposit to pay in order to secure the property. The deposit was paid following that email.
I'm just wondering if this is legally acceptable, it seems that the holding deposit almost means nothing. I suspect that someone else has gone and offered more for the property, therefore the landlord is rejecting us regardless of having supposedly taken the property off the market following our holding deposit.
Any advice on this, or do I need to suck it up and accept the fact that this is just the way things work.
Thanks
I don't think you can force him to rent it you at the price, even if you could he'd just terminate the agreement as soon as possible and leave you looking again. He has requested a change to the agreement you have made which either you agree to or you don't. He may be in breach of contract however its up to you, pay up or request your deposit back as you longer wish to rent the property on these new changed rates. Compensation to cover expenses incurred would be long shot on a property you haven't moved into
my 2C anyway, probably not what you want to hear though
my 2C anyway, probably not what you want to hear though
Actus Reus said:
flemke said:
What was the point of a "holding deposit", unless it was to hold the property for the OP under the terms offered?
Quite - but not legally binding on the landlord I don't think.My advice is practical in that you won't be able to force the landlord to rent you the property. Even if you did, it's pretty clear that in 6 months time or as soon as the fixed period ends, your rent is going to be put up by £100...
So, decide if you want the property at £100 more, or not. You might have a position to now negotiate a longer fixed term, if that is your wish, or you could negotiate a lower increase.
At the end of it though, my gut reaction without seeing the terms of what you've entered into so far that you *should* be allowed everything you've paid for referencing and holding deposit back.
You might hope the landlord would consider the cost of having the property stand vacant a few more weeks while he tries to find tenants prepared to pay the increased rent, compared to having you move in sooner at a slightly lower rent. Ideally you might hope the landlord would simply honour the deal struck on his behalf by his agents, but expecting him to behave honourably is probably too much.
JustinP1 said:
Actus Reus said:
flemke said:
What was the point of a "holding deposit", unless it was to hold the property for the OP under the terms offered?
Quite - but not legally binding on the landlord I don't think.My advice is practical in that you won't be able to force the landlord to rent you the property. Even if you did, it's pretty clear that in 6 months time or as soon as the fixed period ends, your rent is going to be put up by £100...
So, decide if you want the property at £100 more, or not. You might have a position to now negotiate a longer fixed term, if that is your wish, or you could negotiate a lower increase.
At the end of it though, my gut reaction without seeing the terms of what you've entered into so far that you *should* be allowed everything you've paid for referencing and holding deposit back.
We know that an agreement need not be written and signed in order to be a binding contract. It would seem that the point of paying a deposit was to secure a Tenancy Agreement on the terms proposed, thus precluding the landlord from withdrawing the offer prior to preparation and signing of written TA.
My guess is that landlord would not be forced to let the property to OP, but landlord would be liable for any losses OP would have incurred as a result of landlord's breaking agreement.
I'm really not sure - the deposit isn't consideration for anything, so I don't know that you could say there was a contract between the OP and the Landlord. Certainly it couldn't be right for the OP to forfeit his deposit, but what could somebody lose and therefore sue for? Just idle musings - I don't pretend at all to speak from any experience.
flemke said:
We know that an agreement need not be written and signed in order to be a binding contract. It would seem that the point of paying a deposit was to secure a Tenancy Agreement on the terms proposed, thus precluding the landlord from withdrawing the offer prior to preparation and signing of written TA.
My guess is that landlord would not be forced to let the property to OP, but landlord would be liable for any losses OP would have incurred as a result of landlord's breaking agreement.
It depends on the way the agreement, if any, that is formed. My guess is that landlord would not be forced to let the property to OP, but landlord would be liable for any losses OP would have incurred as a result of landlord's breaking agreement.
From my experience, it is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous in that depending on what happens, it suits them to be an 'agent' in the true sense of the word on behalf of the landlord, but it also suits them to act as an unrelated party when it comes to charging you for references and fees.
The way they would like to arrange it, is that when you put down a holding deposit you are in effect offering to pay X to rent the property, and this offer is for the landlord to reject, or accept - subject to contract of course.
It would not be abnormal for the agent to present the landlord with a number of offers. The prospective tenant may or may not be aware of this.
Actus Reus said:
I'm really not sure - the deposit isn't consideration for anything, so I don't know that you could say there was a contract between the OP and the Landlord. Certainly it couldn't be right for the OP to forfeit his deposit, but what could somebody lose and therefore sue for? Just idle musings - I don't pretend at all to speak from any experience.
Not consideration for anything? If not, why would anyone pay it?What could someone in OP's position sue for? In general (without knowledge of OP's specific circumstances), if the landlord's reneging meant that the would-be tenant had to leave previous stable accommodation and live in a hotel or B+B, commute a longer distance to school or work, lost the opportunity to rent his/her second choice because of the expectation that the first choice was going to be consummated - those would all be avoidable costs or losses directly caused by landlord's reneging.
JustinP1 said:
flemke said:
We know that an agreement need not be written and signed in order to be a binding contract. It would seem that the point of paying a deposit was to secure a Tenancy Agreement on the terms proposed, thus precluding the landlord from withdrawing the offer prior to preparation and signing of written TA.
My guess is that landlord would not be forced to let the property to OP, but landlord would be liable for any losses OP would have incurred as a result of landlord's breaking agreement.
It depends on the way the agreement, if any, that is formed. My guess is that landlord would not be forced to let the property to OP, but landlord would be liable for any losses OP would have incurred as a result of landlord's breaking agreement.
From my experience, it is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous in that depending on what happens, it suits them to be an 'agent' in the true sense of the word on behalf of the landlord, but it also suits them to act as an unrelated party when it comes to charging you for references and fees.
The way they would like to arrange it, is that when you put down a holding deposit you are in effect offering to pay X to rent the property, and this offer is for the landlord to reject, or accept - subject to contract of course.
It would not be abnormal for the agent to present the landlord with a number of offers. The prospective tenant may or may not be aware of this.
Again, it seems to me that the deposit entitles the applicant to something (beyond the agent's merely taking down one's telephone number and saying, "We'll let you know.").
If not, the applicant should pay the deposit in Monopoly money, which is no less real than the consideration that the applicant would be getting for the deposit.
I was meaning more from the point of view that this is a deposit which is different from consideration (or might be).
I see where you're coming from regarding the loss incurred, but I imagine that a landlord would argue that no contract existed and so is not liable. The agency argument just complicates things further.
Anyway, I'll let somebody who knows what they're talking about comment as I'm just pissing in the wind here.
I see where you're coming from regarding the loss incurred, but I imagine that a landlord would argue that no contract existed and so is not liable. The agency argument just complicates things further.
Anyway, I'll let somebody who knows what they're talking about comment as I'm just pissing in the wind here.
I'm about to move from one rented property to another and I was told that my deposit stopped anyone else from putting in an offer and that I had accepted the amount of rent that it was advertised for.
Seems pretty pointless otherwise plus the silly berk will lose money waiting for another tenant unless he's done it on purpose 'cos he has someone in mind already.
Seems pretty pointless otherwise plus the silly berk will lose money waiting for another tenant unless he's done it on purpose 'cos he has someone in mind already.
flemke said:
JustinP1 said:
flemke said:
We know that an agreement need not be written and signed in order to be a binding contract. It would seem that the point of paying a deposit was to secure a Tenancy Agreement on the terms proposed, thus precluding the landlord from withdrawing the offer prior to preparation and signing of written TA.
My guess is that landlord would not be forced to let the property to OP, but landlord would be liable for any losses OP would have incurred as a result of landlord's breaking agreement.
It depends on the way the agreement, if any, that is formed. My guess is that landlord would not be forced to let the property to OP, but landlord would be liable for any losses OP would have incurred as a result of landlord's breaking agreement.
From my experience, it is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous in that depending on what happens, it suits them to be an 'agent' in the true sense of the word on behalf of the landlord, but it also suits them to act as an unrelated party when it comes to charging you for references and fees.
The way they would like to arrange it, is that when you put down a holding deposit you are in effect offering to pay X to rent the property, and this offer is for the landlord to reject, or accept - subject to contract of course.
It would not be abnormal for the agent to present the landlord with a number of offers. The prospective tenant may or may not be aware of this.
Again, it seems to me that the deposit entitles the applicant to something (beyond the agent's merely taking down one's telephone number and saying, "We'll let you know.").
If not, the applicant should pay the deposit in Monopoly money, which is no less real than the consideration that the applicant would be getting for the deposit.
This is the difficulty. Either the agent blunders through the contractual process of paying money but not having a contract by simply not understanding the contractual relationships going on, or, they know but are being deliberately ambiguous so that they can try to hold onto fees. In most cases the prospective tenant does not have the wherewithal to argue effectively.
In the 'contract' I entered into with what was the biggest agent in a big town, they needed for me to agree that if I changed my mind I'd forfeit their fees I'd have to pay in cash to apply - but, should the landlord not accept my offer, they would refund.
I can very much see why the agent wants it this way as they can be an 'agent' when they want, a reference and booking agency when they want, and get paid either way without responsibility either way.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 12th October 18:56
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff