Tenant Fees - Infuriating

Guest101 wrote: »

I disagree, illegal terms have no bearing on this.


S.21 notice is a no fault eviction process. (which has been curbed slightly due to Dereg Act 2015)


LA do not evict people, LLs do. Bad LLs exist, but that is nothing to do with terms in tenancy agreements.

Consider these:

• properties managed by a LA on behalf of a LL. Lots of LLs are clueless and trust the LA to do things properly, which we know they very often don't.
• LLs who trust the LA to setup the tenancy in the first place, and therefore believe that whatever is written in the contract is correct.

Outside of the fixed term, if the LL/LA tries to enforce one of their unfair terms, the tenant is effectively powerless to stop them. If they don't just bend over, they can simply be handed a S21 as a result. While the paperwork may technically be "no fault", in reality it wouldn't be issued if not for the issue over the unfair term.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The contract is actually between the landlord and the tenant not the tenant and the letting agency. An unenforceable clause in a contract isn't the same as an illegal clause. For example, a landlord could insert a clause into a tenancy agreement making the tenant responsible for roof repairs but it doesn't mean the tenant would actually, legally be responsible for carrying out repairs to the roof.

Agreed. But that doesn't stop a LL threatening an S21 unless the tenant does repair the roof.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It isn't just poor people who are affected by Section 21 notices. Any tenant, both those on low incomes and those earning £100k+ pa have no defence against a correctly issued Section 21 so it's not uniquely an issue for poor people.

No, but it disadvantages the poor disproportionately. Someone on a good income can absorb the costs of LA fees and moving costs much more easily - they're more likely to have savings or be able to access short-term credit to cover the costs. Not to mention they're likely to have a better support structure of friends and family (who are more likely to have time and transport) to help them through.

Letting agents CANNOT see defaults or poor payment history, they can only see CCJs and bankruptcy, information which is publicly available. They often word their info to suggest they can do a "full" credit check but they can't. Credit referencing works on a give and take basis, for example credit card companies provide your payment history to the credit referencing companies so in return they get information about defaults etc. Letting agents don't provide any information about how well you are at keeping up with your rent so they're not given access to your credit file. Hope that makes sense.

And yes, the fees are extortionate, we handed over just shy of £2,000 last month when we moved, fair enough that included the deposit and first month's rent but it was still painful. The alternative is you find a private landlord which can be a much slower process in my experience.

I wonder how many LA's are failing to uphold their obligations under the new rules of the Consumer Rights Act (May 2015).

They have to provide a list of their fees for both landlords and tenants in their branches, literature and websites. However I am unsure whether they have to provide a further breakdown of these fees.

I reported my own LA to Trading Standards for failing to do this. Apparently it's commonplace.