Assured Shorthold Tenancy question.

[ashmk]

The property I live in is on a assured shorthold tenancy but a new contract has not be signed since mid 2005.

The agent has not been paying the house owner(whom we know personally) on time, sometimes months behind.

The house owner has no contract with the agent.

The house owner is getting fed up with this agent and wants to rent us the house direct to save the hassle from the agent. the house owner is aware he needs to write up new contracts etc and is prepared to do it right.

The agent has told the house owner that he cannot 'steal' his tennants (ie, us) by renting direct to us.

The house owner is now saying (albiet reluctently) that he will continue with the agent as he does not want to end up in court.

So my question is can the agent do anything to prevent the house owner ditching him and dealing with us direct ?


Ive never delt with a problem like this so ive tried to give an accurate picture of the situation.
If you need to know anything else, please ask.

[Aequitas]

There is no such thing as an indefinite agency agreement. In the absence of any agreement as to how the agent's contract is to be terminated, it can be ended on reasonable notice. I would suggest that one month's notice is reasonable. The landlord needs to arrange matters so that the agent does not keep the final payment of rent as "compensation".

[ashmk]

cheers

[ashmk]

This problem we thought had been cured. The agent got in contact with the landlord so the landlord told us to carry on as normal paying the agent.

Now its worse.

The agent has basicly done a bunk with 3 months rent. No-one can contact him. He has vanished from radar.
The Landlord is ok with us. he knows its not out fault and that the money was paid so i dont think he has any intrest in getting us to pay twice. I believe the landlord is starting legal action against him.

The problem we now have is the landlord is demanding we pay him direct. Ive asked him to write up a letter detailing the rent per calander month but he says he wont untill he gets his money from the agent. I think he wants to do this so he could up our rent a little to gain back some of his loses depending on the outcome of his legal action.

Now Im not against paying him direct but I am worried that if I hand over cash without the protection of a contract or something on paper this would be bad.

So my first question is :

should I now withhold payment direct to the landlord untill he gets something in writing and what should be on this paperwork ? does he need (by law) a proper contract rather than a scrap of paper ?

What can he do if I withhold payment untill I get something on paper ? can he boot us out ?


Because of this idiot agent we have got stuck in the middle of a fued and we dont know what to do.



Also the original contract ran out in 2005 and the agent never renewed it so how would I go about requesting the deposit back. I know its proberly lost now but I should send a letter requesting it anyway. Does anyone have a nice template request the deposit to fit whats happening here. Thankyou.

[Aequitas]

Whatever the terms of the tenancy were they continue. If there was a fixed term it does not expire simply because the agent has done a bunk. If there was no fixed term then the landlord can increase the rent anyway by following the appropriate procedure. You have an obligation to pay the rent. There is no reason for you to not to.

[MrShed]

Agree with Aequitas.

Also, you cannot ask for the deposit back yet as you have not yet left the property. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the depsoti, so at the end of the tenancy just claim it back from him.

[ashmk]

(edit)(to save confusion i will refer to the letting agent as the landlord and the owner of the house as the home owner)(end edit)


OK thanks but im still confused.

As far as we are concerned our landlord is the letting agent, not the house owner. Our contract is worded this way. It has no mention of the house owner. We pay the letting agent rent, the letting agent sorts problems.
We have nothing to do with the house owner at all on paper or otherwise as far as the bussiness of renting a house is concerned.

The only reason we know the house owner is through work and friends and not because we rent his house. It was pure coincendance that we knew him, and was only known months after moving in.

We have nothing whatsoever on paper between us and the homeowner.

All our paperwork was between us and the letting agent, Our landlord.

So I need to know where we stand, do we get the 'new landlord' (the home owner) to write up new paperwork or not.


Also now the home owner is asking for us to pay him direct we are in essence not paying our legal landlord anymore and will break the terms of the (albeit out of date) contract. Which is going to put us in a rather bad posistion.


Thanks.

[MrShed]

I dont understand what you mean. You have NO relationship legally with the agent. The agent is just that, "an agent", for the landlord(home owner). Your only legal relationship is with the landlord.

[ashmk]

We have no paperwork between us and the homeowner.

All our paperwork, which is now outdated is between us and the agent.

The homeowner could screw us over because theres nothing on paper with his name in it.

[MrShed]

Doesnt matter - the legal relationship is with the home owner only. Every other thing you say is irrelevant.

[Esio Trot]

Originally Posted by MrShed

Doesnt matter - the legal relationship is with the home owner only. Every other thing you say is irrelevant.

I have to tell the OP to exercise caution on your above statement. I know of an "agent" that puts their name in the AST where the landlord's name should go. The reason for this is that on a number of their properties they rent them for maximum rent. As far as the owner is concerned, the rent is often £100 (sometimes even more) a month less.

The owner in the agreement with the "agent" has in fact assigned the property to the agent to do what they like with. Thus, if the OP is in one of these situations, the agent could be responsible, not the landlord.

I would suggest that the OP looks carefully at the tenancy agreement, particularly the names of the parties involved together with their responsibilities.

[MrShed]

Hmmmm...I disagree, but am happy to be proven wrong.

There is a different between acting as an agent, and in fact "subletting" the property for the landlord, which is what is the case from what you are mentioning Esio, and agreed potentially the situation here.

[ashmk]

The agent has put there name where id expect to see the Homeowners name.
On one page it clearly states the landlord is the agent but elsewhere it seems to contridict itself by saying the 'landlords agent'.

The actual homeowners name is NOT mentioned anywhere on the AST. Where you would expect to see this name is in fact the agents name.
This is whats confusing me. It clearly states that all rent must be paid to the Landlord (agent) <----- thats how is worded, with agent in brackets after landlord.

So now we dont know what to do. If we pay the homeowner direct we breat our agreement with the landlord/agent and risk losing out deposit. If we pay the agent as stated in our AST we risk being booted out by the homeowner.

This is all a mess and we are still nonoe the wiser as to what to do.

[MrShed]

I really dont see the issue. The agent is not the landlord. You have no agreement with the agent. You only have an agreement with the landlord. Therefore there is no issue from your point of view with paying the rent direct - there may be for the landlord, but that is not your issue. Is the landlord prepared to give you a new signed contract?

The ONLY way in which I could even begin to guess this would cause an issue is if the agent is renting the property from the landlord and then subletting to you. This is clearly not the case, as you say the landlord has no contract with the agent. IMO, this situation is being massively overcomplicated for no real reason.

[ashmk]

OK, its becoming clear in my head now. To much panacking I think.

Now to another point. The agent has our deposit, if we bypass him and pay the homeowner direct this would be breaking the terms of the agreement (it says clearly that we are to pay the agent). We then risk the loss of our deposit.
Remember the homeowner and agent has no contract so theres nothing to say about the deposit between them two.
Obviously we have not left so cannot claim back the deposit but if the agent is being removed from the picture surley he should give it back and we then give it to homeowner.
The agent has never given a deposit to the homeowner. Theres nothing signed by us and the homeowner to agree and pay a deposit. Only between us and the now bunked agent.

[MrShed]

The landlord is ultimately responsible for the return of the deposit, irrespective of whether he actually received it from the agent or not. The landlord can then sue the agent for the deposit amount due to a breach of contract(although there is no signed contract between the two parties, there are certain terms implied by the verbal agreement of being an agent).

Either way, it does not affect your deposit status.

There is a safe(if convoluted) way to proceed however, with regards both the rent and the deposit. What is the fixed term on your tenancy, and has it yet expired?

[ashmk]

6 months and yes it has expired. From and including 19th Nov 2004.

It then says 'and thereafter on a contractual basis subject to the provision of clause 15.

Clause 15 goes on to say about written notices and cancellation. No written noticed have ever been written or recieved.