Is This Illegal???

tbs624

Whatever is stated on anyone's website or within any one's small print, until such time as there is a test of the specific issue within a court, then it's up for challenge IMO.

It cannot be the case that a LL/LA has the right to restrict tenants in this way especially if they themselves are getting a rake-off as a result. Profiteering in the lettings industry at the expense of tenants......whoever heard of such a thing?

Obviously, a LA/LL can simply decide to give notice at an appropriate point bceause the tenant cheesed them off over their deal with a leccy company, but they have to weigh up the potential void costs and the uncertainty of an unknown new tenant who may not only kick off about utility supplies but also take up growing "waccy baccy" in the dining room, & other dastardly deeds.

One of the key issues will be that many of the LLs will not know that their tenants are being irritated by LA stunts such as these.

Greedy LAs and their insatiable attempts to haul in extra income from tenants who may feel that have little choice in the matter are a major problem in the property rentals business and here's to some tighter regulations on their modus operandi once the current private rentals reviews are completed:beer:

Premier_2

Why would a tenant agree to abide by the terms of a TA and then go to the effort & expense of contesting them?

Just choose another property that does not have such restriction included in the TA

...or is this an offer by tbs624 to fund the legal battle on behalf of all tenants currently restrained by the terms of their TA? :rotfl:

DGJsaver

Premier wrote: »

Why would a tenant agree to abide by the terms of a TA and then go to the effort & expense of contesting them?

Just choose another property that does not have such restriction included in the TA

...or is this an offer by tbs624 to fund the legal battle on behalf of all tenants currently restrained by the terms of their TA? :rotfl:

I agree
But that ISNT the question in hand is it

Premier_2

DGJsaver wrote: »

So they arent the law ? which makes your post pointless ?




Personally i`ll go with what the OFT says..

The OFT aren't the law either. They haven't even ruled the term as unfair, only that it is potentially unfair.

Premier_2

DGJsaver wrote: »

I agree
But that ISNT the question in hand is it

It addresses the previous post by tbs624

Btw, how can you agree? If the term was unfair or illegal as you have been impying, then there would be good reason to contest it as the claimant would most probably win.

DGJsaver

Premier wrote: »

The OFT aren't the law either. They haven't even ruled the term as unfair, only that it is potentially unfair.

I know that:rotfl:

Its as relevant as your Energywatch post , thats my point :rotfl:

DGJsaver

Premier wrote: »

It addresses the previous post by tbs624

Btw, how can you agree? If the term was unfair or illegal as you have been impying, then there would be good reason to contest it as the claimant would most probably win.

I agree in as much as dont move in if you dont agree to the terms...

Premier_2

DGJsaver wrote: »

I agree in as much as dont move in if you dont agree to the terms...

No, a tenant agrees to abide by the terms when they sign the TA

If the term is illegal (as questioned in the thread title), it cannot be upheld.

As the term is not illegal it can be upheld.

Premier_2

DGJsaver wrote: »

I know that:rotfl:

Its as relevant as your Energywatch post , thats my point :rotfl:

So why are you choosing one site over the other? Both say effectively the same thing - no it is not illegal to have such a term in the TA.

Quentin

I fear we are wasting our time with this poster.

One of his other threads has already been highlighted, (as well as his abuse!).

Here is another example of his "interests" here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=12879775#post12879775