Jump to content


Letting Agent claiming they are "not insured"??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3369 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I'm about to renew the tenancy agreement on my house for another year. When that year runs out I am unsure of how long I will want to remain in the property, so I asked the letting agent if it could just go on to a periodic tenancy after 12 months and they said "no, we are not insured for that".

 

They proposed that I renew the tenancy for this year, and next time I come to renew it, they can do a one year contract with a break clause after 3 months. (So basically I can get out whenever I want after 3 months.)

 

This is fine apart from the £200 renewal fee they charge each time you want to renew the tenancy agreement! To avoid paying this I asked them if I could have a 2 year contract with a break clause after 12 months. Again they came back and said they are not insured for this.

 

I suspect that they are lying because they want me to pay the renewal fee next year. Is this likely or is it common that letting agents don't have insurance for anything other than a 12 month contract??!

 

Could they really be insured for a 1 year contract with a break clause after 3 months, but not a 2 year contract with a break clause after 12 months?

 

If they are lying about this is there anything I can do? Am I entitled to see their insurance policy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand it sounds like it is an untrue excuse. On the other hand, as long as they are acting in accordance with the landlord's wishes they can insist. On the third hand it is often the case that the landlord wouldn't be bothered either way and that in fact the agency may well be telling the landlord exactly the same thing so that they can also charge the landlord a fee.

 

You could either ignore the agency and continue to pay the rent in the hope that they don't evict you, or you could try bypassing the agent and contacting landlord direct (many landlords won't appreciate that though).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention we already talked to the landlord and he is happy for us to have a periodic tenancy or a 2 year contract with a break clause at 12 months. I don't think he is bothered either way as we are the best tenants he's had in years. It's the letting agent saying they are not insured for it. Another thing that makes me doubt them was that their original excuse was that the landlord wouldn't allow it, but when we contacted him we found out he wasn't bothered! So they have already lied once.

 

I am just wondering why they are insured for a 12 month contract but not a 24 month contract, it doesn't make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the LA a member of ARLA etc?

Can't see why LA has to be 'insured' other than general business Ins.

If in E&W, do nothing, sign nothing, just be in legal occupation day after end of fixed term and SPT, will be automatically be created.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it is the LL who has to evict you,not the agency, so if the LL is fine with you being on periodic then the agency will have to take it up with him.

The agency only have a contract with the LL not with you.

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...