We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cam someone advise on this please
Options
DGJsaver
Posts: 2,777 Forumite
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=12878961&posted=1#post12878961
Who is correct when were talking about how a AST or rental agreement works out in law terms ?
Who is correct when were talking about how a AST or rental agreement works out in law terms ?
0
Comments
-
Not you. As posted on the other thread, terms in a tenancy agreement are lawful and enforceable if they do not contravene statute or common law.
And just for the avoidance of any doubt, contract law IS part of English law.0 -
Who is correct when were talking about how a AST or rental agreement works out in law terms ?
At the top of every page it says:
Remember, this is an open forum! Anyone can post so always exercise caution when acting on info
Yet you have posted authoritavely (totally wrong) advice to a tenant in the thread you link to, and now come here wanting advice on the topic for yourself!0 -
At the top of every page it says:
Yet you have posted authoritavely (totally wrong) advice to a tenant in the thread you link to, and now come here wanting advice on the topic for yourself!
Calm down silly , i wanted advice from a specific forum , it could be worse i could be one of thos that wont accept they arent right0 -
Have read the thread linked to and added my own comments on that OP's original query there
In fairness to DGJsaver, his argument may have become muddled at points but I think the essence of what he was trying to say was that just because a tenancy agreement (or indeed any other contract) contains certain terms, it does not necessarily follow that each and every one of those terms will be enforceable at law. That much is true.
Any contract term that seeks to place one party to that contract at a disadvantage is up for challenge under the Unfair Contract Terms Regs if nothing else and additionally, as I said on the other thread, having seen some of the LA letters on this issue I have to say that they are worded in a way that is (in my view) intended to mislead a tenant into believing that the switch-over is a done deal.
Even if the LA could show that there were some benefits , ie currently lower prices, for the tenant I really don't think that they can restrict a tenant in this manner & tie them to one supplier for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenant uses and pays for the gas and electricity at the property: it is surely therefore the case that the contract for those supplies is a matter for the tenant rather than the LA, especially when the tenancy is one that has been running for some time.0 -
Have read the thread linked to and added my own comments on that OP's original query there
In fairness to DGJsaver, his argument may have become muddled at points but I think the essence of what he was trying to say was that just because a tenancy agreement (or indeed any other contract) contains certain terms, it does not necessarily follow that each and every one of those terms will be enforceable at law. That much is true.
Any contract term that seeks to place one party to that contract at a disadvantage is up for challenge under the Unfair Contract Terms Regs if nothing else and additionally, as I said on the other thread, having seen some of the LA letters on this issue I have to say that they are worded in a way that is (in my view) intended to mislead a tenant into believing that the switch-over is a done deal.
Even if the LA could show that there were some benefits , ie currently lower prices, for the tenant I really don't think that they can restrict a tenant in this manner & tie them to one supplier for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenant uses and pays for the gas and electricity at the property: it is surely therefore the case that the contract for those supplies is a matter for the tenant rather than the LA, especially when the tenancy is one that has been running for some time.
Nothing in law prevents a LL from stating in the TA that the utility companies cannot be changed.
As I posted in the other thread, the OFT only says it is potentially unreasonable (but does agree that the LL should be kept informed if so desired and that the supply must be returned to the original supplier by the end of the tenancy) not that it has ruled it as unfair.
Energywatch also state that you cannot change supplier if the lease specifically states you cannot.
Why would a tenant agree, possibly after seeking legal advice if they were unsure of anything, to abide by the terms of a TA and then spend a small fortune in court contesting that TA despite no guarantee of winning. Wouldn't it simply be easier and cheaper to find another property where the TA did not prohibit the changing of supplier?
"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Nothing in law prevents a LL from stating in the TA that the utility companies cannot be changed.
As I posted in the other thread, the OFT only says it is potentially unreasonable (but does agree that the LL should be kept informed if so desired and that the supply must be returned to the original supplier by the end of the tenancy) not that it has ruled it as unfair.
Energywatch also state that you cannot change supplier if the lease specifically states you cannot.
Why would a tenant agree, possibly after seeking legal advice if they were unsure of anything, to abide by the terms of a TA and then spend a small fortune in court contesting that TA despite no guarantee of winning. Wouldn't it simply be easier and cheaper to find another property where the TA did not prohibit the changing of supplier?
I think you are maybe losing sight of the original question which was about a LA seeking to force an existing tenant to switch to a new specific supplier of the LAs choosing, for both gas & elec.
If a term on an issue such as this places a tenant at a disadvantage, or has the capacity to do so, then IMO it's unlikely to be able to stand. If the tenant refuses to sign over to the new supplier as requested by the LA, then what can the LA do - try to evict for breach, or just because they can at a specific point?
Have you actually seen one of these letters Premier? I don't currently have access to a scanner otherwise I'd give you a fine example. Any judge who saw one would no doubt have firm views on the wording.
There is growing attention being paid to the issue of "retaliatory evictions" and any LA/LL being petty enough to try that over an issue like this should be ( & would be ) given maximum publicity of the wrong sort.
I would actually like to see the law used to give some LLs/ LAs a swift kick up the behind - so for example if it could be shown that prior to a fixed term ( or periodic) eviction of a tenant who had been satisfactory in all other respects, the tenant had justifiably challenged the LL over repairs issues or suspect contractual terms then the LL/LA could be fined for a retaliatory eviction.0 -
No, so you've got one have you? What does it say about you having to change supplier? You don't need to scan it, just type in the contents. I've never seen such a term and feel sure that you would probably win any such case if it did. When & where is the hearing - I'd love to come along! I can't believe after all you've posted you are just going to accept it. Of course it would be a case of the LA trying to evict you on this ground (for which there isn't one) rather than you fighting the contents of the letter itself....Have you actually seen one of these letters Premier? I don't currently have access to a scanner otherwise I'd give you a fine example. Any judge who saw one would no doubt have firm views on the wording...
My point is that if a supplier is already chosen it cannot be changed without the LL agreement (if that is what the TA says). I don't believe the LL can dictate who to change the supplier to half way through a TA, and I've never seen such a TA that specifies that. What does it say in your TA?
I'm not sure why a LA would want to force a change of supplier, but if they were so inclined and were acting in accordance with the LL's wishes I suppose they could evict under a s.21 and then change the supplier. Seems a lot of hassle for no real gain. "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
In fairness to DGJsaver, his argument may have become muddled at points but I think the essence of what he was trying to say was that just because a tenancy agreement (or indeed any other contract) contains certain terms, it does not necessarily follow that each and every one of those terms will be enforceable at law. That much is true.
Absolutley SPOT ON and nothing i have seen and read from Premier or Quentin has altered that fact
Thanks for putting it better than i can0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards