Can a tenancy be invalid if guarantor changes their mind before being legally bound I signed a tenancy 3 days ago: I went into the agent's office and they sent me an email with an online form which contained the tenancy agreement. The form asked for a guarantor; I phoned one of my parents, x, and they agreed to be a guarantor, so I put their name and email address on the form and gave my electronic signature. Before I was handed the keys and moved in (as the tenancy was signed the day before I collected the keys due to me having to pay rent upfront via bank transfer), the agency sent an email to x asking for their details and presumably an e signature (I told x they would require a signature prior to putting x's name down). However, x decided to "leave it floating" and has not given details. We have had an argument today, and hence I don't see x giving details. As it stands, it is my understanding that x is not legally bound to any agreement and thus isn't actually a guarantor assuming that they lie about agreeing to be the guarantor, as in a court of law it would be my word against theirs. The agency wouldn't give me the keys before I paid the first month's rent. So why would they not require the details and signatue of the guarantor first also before handing over keys? I am now living in the property and have moved in my posessions. Where do I stand legally? Just incase it helps, I reside in England. Also, I don't have any other potential guarantors. The tenancy does not mention anything about a guarantor but it was a mandatory field on the form, which needed to be completed in order for the agreement to be signed, and the agent said it wouldn't be possible for me to rent without one.
It sounds like you already have an agreement. They might like to have a guarantor, but if the agreement already exists then its too late for them to insist.
Contracts don’t need to be signed Unless they are of a class that does - NDA’s aren’t. If the parties agree to a contract then it binds them. You agreed and your evidence for doing so is your signature. They agreed and their evidence for doing so is your signature on the contract they gave you.
If the lease has expired and the tenant does not have an option then the landlord is under no obligation to offer a new lease; they do not have to give any reason. They would still need to comply with the notice periods in the lease or it will revert to a month-by-month contract; in that case, the notice period is 1 month.
I got and answer from lawyer in Netherlands. To rent out to the company is not without risks. You rent out to the company and the company rents out to the actual user of the apartment. That is subletting. The sub-lessee is protected by law. So when the company fails to pay, you can end the contract with the company (you have to go to court for this), but then you will become the lessor to the actual user (=sub-lessee) then. If you feel that that is against your interests, you have to start a court procedure within half a year to end the contract with the actual user. Also note: it is forbidden to rent out to people that don't have a legal status. So you make sure you trust the company very well if you are going to rent out to them. I recommend to seek help from a real estate agent that is well known and member of NVM or other trustworthy organisation.
When selling a residential property in the UK, you normally fill out a form called the TA10 Fittings and Contents Form, which outlines everything in the property included in the sale. This isn't a legal requirement, but your conveyancing solicitor will normally recommend it. Anything else left in the property after the completion of the sale is still, legally, a possession of the previous owner and the new owner is obliged to inform them of these possessions in writing. So, you do have to return it (and most people in such situations do return the possessions without question). However, if the presence of those possessions means you can't be reasonably expected to move into the property, then you can claim compensation from the previous owner for alternative accommodation (i.e. a hotel) until the situation is rectified. Or if the previous owner refuses to collect the possessions, you can likewise claim compensation for the costs of disposing of it. Alternatively, if they do want the possessions back, but take their time getting it, you can charge them fair storage costs.
In general, a properly signed lease is binding. But there are exceptions, and they vary depending on the jurisdiction: country, state/province, and even city or county in many places. You mention a claim that the property should not be leased "because the owner needs it". In some jurisdictions, there is a special exception if the owner personally, or a member of the owner's immediate family, intended to live in the property. It is not clear form the question if such an exception would apply. it might well be that a person in the position described in the question has a valid and enforceable lease, and could simply remain in the property, paying rent, and the owner would have no valid grounds for eviction. But this kind of case will depend on the exact wording of the rental agreement, and on the exact provisions of the applicable laws, which vary widely depending on the location of the property. A person in this kind of situation would b wise to consult a local lawyer who will know local property law, and how the provisions of the agreement and other claims will be treated by local courts. There may also be local tenant assistance organizations, run by the government or by non-profit groups, who will know local law and can assist in such cases. A general answer cannot be gotten from a forum such as this which an individual should rely upon in such a case, particularly when the question does not even state what country, let alone what specific locality, is involved.
In most jurisdictions, yes, you must give 30 days notice; this is a statutory requirement incumbent on both parties. This (your rental type) is a tenancy-at-will. If you pay rent monthly (on 1st) then this is the period of time required for notice to vacate. In some jurisdictions 30 days is required no matter what intervals you may rent (say weekly), other jurisdictions if you pay rent weekly then a week's notice is all that's necessary. This is In the absence of a rental agreement setting forth another agreed to term. See this question: If no prior contracts have been signed, can a landlord make tenants sign after a week of tenancy? It is not the same but there is some information on this type of tenancy.
As Paul Johnson says, this is a planning permission thing. The parking places your landlord has leased you are real; they exist. They just don't have planning permission for all of them. It's no different to if the landlord got planning permission for a building of four flats, and built a block of six flats. Building those two additional flats would illegal, and the planning authority could take enforcement action against the landlord for it; however, letting those two additional flats out is perfectly legal. Similarly letting those parking places is legal; it's just that the planning authority may take action against the landlord to force two of the parking places to be removed. At that point the landlord would have to break the contract with the tenants of the parking places, and would be liable for damages. In practise, unless there are some activist neighbours, the planning authority won't take any enforcement action (spending money on legal action for two parking places is not high on their list of priorities). Even if there are some activist neighbours, they probably won't bother. Finally, any development becomes lawful after ten years, and if the development is used as dwellings, after four years. It is not clear to me whether the parking spaces would be considered as a separate development to the flats (and hence have a ten year limit), or whether they are ancillary to the dwellings (and hence have a four year limit). My suspicion is that the landlord was asked to sign an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (which essentially just certifies that the development is out of time for planning enforcement). If so, that means that ... the development is out of time for planning enforcement, so you have no need to worry. Incidentally, if I am right, your friend doesn't have any need to worry either, and is probably being put off the purchase by an overly cautious conveyancer. (Note: I am not a lawyer, and in particular, I am not your friend's lawyer.)