Is This Illegal???

DGJsaver

Quentin wrote: »

This is irrelevant, and giving the op the wrong advice.

Before anyone can advise properly, the specifics of the agreement need to be known.

How is it irrelevant ????

DGJsaver

Tozer wrote: »

Unless there is a policy reason why it is not lawful (illegality, imorality, etc) or it flies in the face of a statutory provision which cannot be contracted out of, or there is clear case law, then it is, per se, lawful and enforceable.

So i was correct , it isnt AUTOMATICALLY lawfull as per your above scenarios

Tozer

DGJsaver wrote: »

So i was correct , it isnt AUTOMATICALLY lawfull as per your above scenarios

No, you are wrong because you have not been able to point to a reason why it is not unlawful!

You are seeing things the wrong way around. Things are lawful unless they are unlawful. Not unlawful unless they are lawful!

This is one of the fundamental principles of English contract law - its called freedom of contract.

DGJsaver

Tozer wrote: »

No, you are wrong because you have not been able to point to a reason why it is not unlawful!

You are seeing things the wrong way around. Things are lawful unless they are unlawful. Not unlawful unless they are lawful!

This is one of the fundamental principles of English contract law - its called freedom of contract.

Ok , i bow to your superior knowledge on the subject , no problem

But , can a letting agent by law force a tenent to use a certain energy supplier

Yes or no ?

Tozer

DGJsaver wrote: »

Ok , i bow to your superior knowledge on the subject , no problem

But , can a letting agent by law force a tenent to use a certain energy supplier

Yes or no ?

It all depends on what is in the contract. The fact that it is lost presents an evidential problem but if the agency can show that it would have been their standard contract and that such a provision was included, then yes they could enforce the change.

Personally, I would ask the agent for proof of their authority to require this before accepting the change.

Quentin

DGJsaver wrote: »

can a letting agent by law force a tenent to use a certain energy supplier

Yes or no ?

See post no. 2 in this thread!

Premier_2

Have a look at this thread by DGJsaver :rolleyes:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1061465

Quentin

charmed-imsure should especially check that thread out!

tbs624

IMO the LA is wrong. This is something that a number of LAs seem to be trying on, and I think it is likely that there is indeed some financial benefit for them.

The contract for the utility supplies is a private matter between tenant/occupier and the utility company. A LA may not put a tenant at a disadvantage by tying them to one supplier. They may quite rightly stipulate that any change of supplier is notified to them, simply for admin purposes so that when the tenancy ends, or if there is some kind of emergency, they know who the supplier is.

I would simply write to the LA and say

"Thank you for your invitation to move my energy suppliers to xxx, however the contract for supply of gas and electricity is paid for by me as the tenant. I do not consent to such a switch being made, but will ensure that you arenotified of the name of my energy supply company and final meter readings when I move out."

Edited to add: also send a copy of the letter to the LL, as in some of the cases I've seen the LLs were totally unaware of what the LA was trying to do.

If a tenant hadn't made any response to the original letter on a proposed supplies switchover then of course a LA clerk would follow it up, just in case the tenant had simply overlooked the matter - far better to have just responded straight away, effectively saying "get lost"

I have to say that the LA letters that I have seen on this are worded in such a way that many tenants will believe that they have no option but to agree to the switch.

.....another issue to highlight to the Housing Minister whilst the private sector rentals review is under way.

Premier_2

If an TA specifies that an energy supplier may not be changed, the tenant shouldn't agree to be bound by that TA in the first place - they should choose another property. Why are people wanting to do things the difficult way?

According to the OFT, it is only potentially unreasonable for a TA to specify that a supplier may not be changed. The OFT would prefer a LL is kept informed of any change of supplier and to also make the tenant return the supply to the original supplier by the end of the tenancy.

Obligation
Against changing the phone or utility supplier



OFT view

The tenant should have the choice of supplier although he may be required to keep the landlord informed of any change and to return the account to the original supplier at the end of the tenancy.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf

Page 64