Estate Agents must pass on all offers made on a house - UK Legislation I rang up an estate agent to make an offer on a house and was told they were not going to pass this on to the seller because there were already 3 offers on the table. I am aware that under UK Law estate agent must pass on all offers made on the property right up until the exchange of contracts. I keep seeing reference to this being in the Estate Agents Act 1979, but for the life I cannot find it in there. Does anyone know the specific section that covers this requirement.
s.3 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 allows for &quot;Orders prohibiting unfit persons from doing estate agency work&quot; if, for example, contrary to section s.3(1)(d) they are found to have ...engaged in a practice which, in relation to estate agency work, has been declared undesirable by an order made by the Secretary of State. One such practice declared undesirable by the Secretary of State is at paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the Estate Agents (Undesirable Practices) (No. 2) Order 1991 : The failure by an estate agent to forward to his client promptly and in writing accurate details (other than those of a description which the client has indicated in writing he does not wish to receive) of any offer the estate agent has received from a prospective purchaser inrespect of an interest in the land. but note the emboldened caveat which may explain why certain details are not always passed on.
Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 provides that (2) The court shall not make an order for possession on any of the grounds in Schedule 2 to this Act unless that ground and particulars of it are specified in the notice under this section; but the grounds specified in such a notice may be altered or added to with the leave of the court. Section 7 of the same Act also provides that (1) The court shall not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy except on one or more of the grounds set out in Schedule 2 to this Act; [...]
I haven't listened to the podcast, but this is probably referring to the anticipated &quot;Renters Reform Bill&quot;. A white paper was published on 16 June 2022. There is no Bill before Parliament yet, so the mooted changes are quite a long way from happening. (Additionally, the usual political churn may mean that this does not happen at all. The Secretary of State has already changed, and will likely change again once there is a new Prime Minister; political priorities may shift in all sorts of ways; there could be a general election; etc.) One proposal from the government is (section 3.1): We will abolish Section 21 evictions and simplify tenancy structures. To achieve this, we will move all tenants who would previously have had an Assured Tenancy or Assured Shorthold Tenancy onto a single system of periodic tenancies. Tenants will need to provide two months’ notice when leaving a tenancy, ensuring landlords recoup the costs of finding a tenant and avoid lengthy void periods. This will provide greater security for tenants while retaining the important flexibility that privately rented accommodation offers. This will enable tenants to leave poor quality properties without remaining liable for the rent or to move more easily when their circumstances change, for example to take up a new job opportunity. Landlords will only be able to evict a tenant in reasonable circumstances, which will be defined in law, supporting tenants to save with fewer unwanted moves. Currently, tenants on an AST cannot leave their tenancy during the fixed term, unless the tenancy agreement specifically provides for this with a &quot;break clause&quot;. A break clause might say that after six months, the tenant is allowed to terminate the arrangement with one month of notice to the landlord. Or there might be no break clause at all, so that the arrangement can end early only if the landlord and tenant agree (&quot;surrendering the tenancy&quot;). Once the fixed term ends, it can be renewed for another fixed term, or terminated, or else it rolls on to become a &quot;periodic tenancy&quot;, typically month-to-month. The tenant can give notice to quit during this time. The government's proposal seems to amount to having no initial fixed term, but a statutory periodic tenancy from the get-go. As far as timing, the white paper says: We will provide at least six months’ notice of our first implementation date, after which all new tenancies will be periodic and governed by the new rules. Specific timing will depend on when Royal Assent is secured. To avoid a two-tier rental sector, and to make sure landlords and tenants are clear on their rights, all existing tenancies will transition to the new system on a second implementation date. After this point, all tenants will be protected from Section 21 eviction. We will allow at least twelve months between the first and second dates. Again, the Bill has not been introduced to Parliament or even published in draft, so Royal Assent is a long way off.
Yes, you have to give 2 months notice and you have to pay £145 + VAT The first clause says your notice cannot end within 6 months of the start of the lease: that is long gone. You pay the lower fee because you will have stayed longer than 12 months by the time your 2 months notice expires. You can try to negotiate a shorter notice period - they have advantages in relenting if you move out earlier.
Nah, you can't. First of all, you can't require the other party anything until you have a contract. They owe nothing to you. Once you've got an offer from them (i.e. a written contract they offer you to sign), you can ask them to clarify the terms as much as you wish — until they get bored and withdraw the offer. You also can make counteroffers: draft your own contract instead and offer them to sign. (Note that by doing this you kill their initial offer i.e. you can't accept it anymore unless they offer it again). Misrepresentation (let alone fraudulent) is not relevant until proven. Lack of clarity or complex legalese language is no misrepresentation.
It is the tenant's responsibility to understand the written contract. Oral statements about the contract do have to be consistent with the written contract (that is, in the context where you ask the landlord what a particular clause means before signing -- not in the case where you are modifying an existing contract). If I were renting a room and the contract says "Du må betale $1000 hver dag", which I don't understand because my Norwegian is terrible, I would ask about this, and the landlord might say that it means "You must pay $1000 every month", which could be a decent deal. Actually, the clause says "You must pay $1000 every day". When the reality of the situation becomes clear, then it is obvious that we didn't have an agreement in the first place. Perhaps he mis-spoke, or his English is as bad as my Norwegian, but I would not be held to rate in the written contract, assuming that I could back up my claim that he gave me that interpretation: the lease would probably be voided, as not an actual agreement. The underlying principle is that there has to be a "meeting of the minds" where the parties understand what they will get and what they must give, and there was a demonstrable failure of understanding. On the other hand, if I sign a contract without really reading it carefully, and there is a clause in English (which I speak) saying that I have to pay $1000 a day, but I didn't really think about the clause so that in a sense I didn't understand what I had agreed to, well, I may still be on the hook. (On the third hand, a court would probably say that's a ridiculous rent and void the contract on policy grounds). In general, "not my first language" is not a get-out-of-contract card, though attempts to trick people into signing documents in languages that they really have no understanding of won't be successful. Virtually nobody but a lawyer actually understands contractual language, yet contracts are enforced all the time. A contract can be explicitly modified by verbal agreement, or can be entirely verbal, but oral agreements face evidence problems, namely, what exactly did A and B say? It's scientifically well established that parties can be morally certain that the conversation went "A" (for one person) and "Not A" (for the other person). Using "could" rather than "would" in speech makes a huge difference in interpretation. There is a rule, the parol evidence rule, which essentially says that unless there is a good reason to not do so, the contract as written is what is enforced. Even if the conversation had been written into the contract, there's no basis in the contract for objectively determining whether a thing is old and "just broke". So even as an additional clause in the contract, it doesn't afford you a clear escape hatch. You might be able to prove with expert testimony that indeed the pipes had been corroding for a hundred years, and you could not have caused the pipes to burst.
In general, a person may appoint as many agents as s/he wishes for a particular purpose. The principal is responsible for the actions of all such agents, unless they exceeded their powers or instructions, and in some cases even then. In this particular case all such accesses would have to be &quot;reasonable&quot; taken together, and if the various agents fail to coordinate their requests for access, the result may be an unreasonable burden on the tenant. But as far as I can determine there is no formal process that a Kansas landlord must go through to appoint an agent, nor any specific limit on the number of agents appointed. The general law of agency is flexible on such matters. A tenant would be justified in asking for proof (or at least evidence) that a person is in fact acting as a landlord's agent, or in confirming with the landlord. The complex management is clearly the landlord's agent.
Like a paper signature in ink or blood, a finger squiggle is merely evidence that you have agreed to the terms of a contract. You have agreed, and now you are know the downside of that agreement. However, Colorado law gives you a special privilege to cancel certain contracts, and this may be one: here is the law. Under CO Rev Stat §5-3-402, with some exceptions, the buyer has the right to cancel a home solicitation sale until midnight of the third business day after the day on which the buyer signs an agreement or offer to purchase that complies with this part 4. You must give written notice to the seller at the address stated in the agreement. One exception is that you cannot cancel an agreement for an "emergency requiring immediate remedy" (there will be paperwork regarding that). A "home solicitation sale" is one that solicits the sale and the buyer's agreement or offer to purchase is given to the seller or a person acting for the seller at a residence which matches the facts as you describe them. Part 4 is the part that includes §5-3-401 through §5-3-405. §5-3-403 specifies the form of that agreement. One of the requirements is a written agreement or offer to purchase that designates as the date of the transaction the date on which the buyer actually signs and contains a statement of the buyer's rights that complies with subsection (2) of this section. A copy of any writing required by this subsection (1) to be signed by the buyer, completed at least as to the date of the transaction and the name and mailing address of the seller, shall be given to the buyer at the time the buyer signs the writing. Furthermore, Until the seller has complied with this section, the buyer may cancel the home solicitation sale by notifying the seller in any manner and by any means of the buyer's intention to cancel;except that the buyer's right of cancellation shall expire three years after the date of the consummation of the home solicitation sale, notwithstanding the fact that the seller has not complied with this part So it depends on when exactly this happened: you may be able to cancel.