Is an AST effective if the deposit has not been paid in full?

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "22/08/2016 - 16:29":

And something I have only just discovered, you have to tell the tenant, in writing, his email address and telephone number, if you do not do this the notification is invalid. I do not take deposits so only found this out whilst acting as a 'Mckenzie friend' in court.

Bizarre?

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "22/08/2016 - 16:54":

Thanks for raising this point, David. I recently had to complete the form from the DPS when I was protecting my new tenant's deposit. Fortunately, it was a well designed form so I was prompted to complete those details, as well as filling in the relevant clauses from the AST, so hopefully if landlords take care to complete the deposit company forms properly, I would say they should be legally compliant.

BTW, as a landlord who take tenants on housing benefit, what is your opinion of the piece of gutter journalism being talked about in this thread?

i just wanted to check a detail on this. The tenants have paid nothing yet have access to the property. Doesn't there need to be consideration from the tenants for a contract to be valid? Or is an AST a special case? Does it make a difference whether the tenant intended to pay or gained access fraudulently??

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "22/08/2016 - 19:25":

I have so far refrained from commenting as I first needed to let my anger subside. The government pays below market rent for landlords to house below market tenants, expects above market quality of accommodation and then we are told that our legitimate rent for a service provided is a 'haul'. We are told that antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated and given no tools to control such behaviour. We have to act as unpaid border control with disproportionate fines if we make a mistake. We have to protect deposits, not because the government cares one jot about the tenant, but so that HMRC knows exactly when we let and how much we are charging. Again the penalty for making a clerical error is draconian.

I have increased my rent to counter the loss of the wear and tear allowance (always a perk but it enabled me to keep rents down) and will increase it again when section 24 starts to bite (I am not affected but will keep my rents in line with the majority). I no longer care if my tenants are evicted, Osborne edited out my social conscience. I tried for 30 years as a landlord to help the disadvantaged but no longer for I cannot fight the iniquitous taxes that he government is imposing, save via the Judicial Review. Soon my tenants will have a choice of a roof or food.

At least, for the time being, stab vests and personal CCTV are tax deductible items for rent collectors.

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "22/08/2016 - 20:31":

Well said, David.

Reply to the comment left by "dp1 Django" at "22/08/2016 - 20:30":

That's good point, but I believe it would be argued that there is a consideration as the rent will be paid in future and there is an obligation to pay. For example, it is possible to have a contract to purchase other types of property on loan terms such as hire purchase. You can buy goods with no money down but there is still a consideration as payment is still due and there is still an obligation to pay.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "22/08/2016 - 21:13":

Thanks Mandy. The consideration was due 4 days after the tenancy was signed but did not materialise after 4 days. If the consideration was due in 10 days I could understand that you couldn't complain on day 5 but if no money has turned up after it was promised then surely there is no consideration and no contract?

If the tenant acted fraudulently (and I'm not suggesting this tenant has) and had no intention of paying would that nullify the contract?

Reply to the comment left by "dp1 Django" at "22/08/2016 - 21:43":

Unfortunately, giving someone possession with an expectation and obligation to pay rent is sufficient to create an AST. We had a similar situation on Property118 recently; this is the link to the thread: https://www.property118.com/can-remove-tenant-no-agreement-money-taken/86864/#comments - see Charles King's comment.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "22/08/2016 - 22:00":

Thanks Mandy, interesting reading.