Tenancy Agreement Not Signed By All Parties

[andylondonuk]

Hi,

 

I have, what I hope, is a simple question.

 

We've just entered into an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement and moved into the flat.

 

When we signed the tenancy contract, ours were the only signatures on it, so I expected to get a copy with the landlords signature on it. When we did, it was another copy of the contract with just his signature on it and not ours (and it was a scanned copy via email, not original).

 

So we have no contract with both our original signatures on it, is this a less common practice, I've never seen this before? Is it still legally binding?

 

Previously, we've always signed two copies of the contract, which either included the landlords signature already, or his/hers was added and forwarded on to us later.

 

Thanks,

Andy.

[southoxon]

No it isn't. For your own protection you should rectify this.

[Chiro]

You need all signatures on the same document for it to be legal. Worse case for you is that you have no right of abode and can be evicted immediately. Get a copy of the original with all names signed. Do it now.

[bedlington83]

Worse case for you is that you have no right of abode and can be evicted immediately.

Nonsense. There is a tenancy regardless of who's signed what. You can only be evicted via a court order.

[andylondonuk]

Hi, thanks everyone. I just checked over the contract again and there doesn't seem to be anywhere for the tenant to sign the copy from the Landlord (it just says Landlords signature). I can't remember if this was the case with the one we signed (i.e. just space for us to sign), the copy is at home so I can't look right now.

 

I'm a little concerned now, I just thought that it was a different way of doing it (it's a major letting agency, so I assumed they'd know). However, I'm aware that a tenancy is created regardless and we can't just be kicked out

 

But, just out of interest; would a judge not take the contract into account, as we have a copy with the landlords signature on, so he couldn't claim there wasn't one?

 

Do they need to be originals to be binding, or are copies OK?

[bedlington83]

I'm a little concerned now

What is it that you're concerned about?

[Steve__M]

The fact that you are now living in the house and rent has been paid and accepted means that a tenancy has been created. A signed copy of a tenancy agreement is not essential (though it is desireable).

 

The law works on balance of probabilities, so the scanned copy of the agreement signed by the landlord should be sufficient.

[andylondonuk]

What is it that you're concerned about?

 

Just that the contract may not be legally binding and that, in the unlikely event we had to go to court for any reason, we'd be relying on a statutory tenancy.

 

For example, the tenancy agreement grants a minimum term and if it was not valid, we would have no minimum term?

[bedlington83]

The law gives you a fixed term of six months in that any notice that the landlord gives cannot expire before the longer of six months and what the tenancy agreement says.

 

Like Steve says, you have a tenancy and if it ever did get to court, the court would want to know what the intended terms of that tenancy are. The agreement that you have that is signed by the landlord would go a long way to convincing the court that they are the terms

[andylondonuk]

Thanks for your advice everyone, so we should be OK as we are, I feel a bit happier now. The fixed term is only six months anyway.