Cam someone advise on this please

tbs624

Premier wrote: »

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.

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?

It seems to have got to the stage where you are arguing with yourself, rather than looking properly at what the OP originally asked or indeed what other people have posted in response.

Rewind just a little Premier because you are perhaps jumping to conclusions. I have no personal case here: I said that I had seen variations of this type of letter from LAs who are, in my opinion, trying it on.

The letters are worded in a way that would be construed by many as misleading, and tenants should not feel obliged simply to sign on the dotted line. The fact that the proposed switchover requires the tenants agreement & signature does give a clue that the LA can’t simply do as they please, but the letters that accompany the forms present it as “we will be doing this, now sign here & return the form”.

Premier wrote: »

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.

Probably because they are getting a cash incentive to do so?

A letting agent who has several hundred tenants on their books will have a nice little earner there, just in case their admin fees, tenancy agreement fees, renewal fees (from both LL & T), deposit registration fees, anything-I-care-to-add fees etc don’t bring in quite enough for them.

If you’re in the business of letting property then you should maybe be aware that some LAs frequently use ever-so-slightly dodgy business practices without the knowledge and/or agreement of the LL for whom they are supposed to be working.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with my view on the issue Premier but it's rare that your posts contain the phrase "IMO" rather than statements that seem intent on trying to slap down anyone who sees things differently to you.

If a term within a contract has the potential to be unfair by putting one party at a distinct disadvantage, then you can't really make a definitive statement one way or another without it being tested through the courts.

I keep highlighting the fact that LAs do not have to have any specific training, expertise or qualifications & yet many amongst both LLs and Ts seem willing to take what they say as being wholly accurate.

Even the briefest trawl of these boards or over at landlordzone will show you that that is frequently not the case and that many LAs seem to have a very shaky concept of even the most basic tenets of LL & T law. A tenant who has arranged a deal for their utility supplies appropriate for their own budget may have much to gain by challenging these idiots: if a LA/LL wants to control utility supplies then let him pay the bills.

A bog standard contract for supplies is absolutely a matter between tenant and supplier - that is my viewpoint, and if I needed to then I would challenge any LA or LL who wanted to argue otherwise if I were the tenant in their property.

real1314

Well my considered opinion is that any Tenancy Agreement that states that the tenant cannot change supplier without LL permission is probably just about lawful or at worst untested.
However any TA that says that the LL can change supplier without the consent of the tenant WOULD be illegal as it would contravene numerous consumer laws on the basis that such a clause could lead to unrestricted costs. I beleive that numerous consumer laws would apply, but I'm not bothering to look them up as it's a rather pointless trawl, and because I don't need to because I am right.

Tozer

real1314 wrote: »

Well my considered opinion is that any Tenancy Agreement that states that the tenant cannot change supplier without LL permission is probably just about lawful or at worst untested.
However any TA that says that the LL can change supplier without the consent of the tenant WOULD be illegal as it would contravene numerous consumer laws on the basis that such a clause could lead to unrestricted costs. I beleive that numerous consumer laws would apply, but I'm not bothering to look them up as it's a rather pointless trawl, and because I don't need to because I am right.

Can you name one consumer law?

It certainly would not be illegal (i.e. an offence to impose it).

It is a standard provision that any change of supplier must be with the LL's consent - for obvious reasons (they will need to know who is supplying the property they own).

Incisor

real1314 wrote: »

... However any TA that says that the LL can change supplier without the consent of the tenant WOULD be illegal as it would contravene numerous consumer laws on the basis that such a clause could lead to unrestricted costs. I beleive that numerous consumer laws would apply, but I'm not bothering to look them up as it's a rather pointless trawl, and because I don't need to because I am right.

So what would be the penalty for such a TA? I very much doubt that imposing such a term is actually a crime, ie it is not illegal. More likely the term itself is unenforceable.

OK, so you are right in the court of your own head, but that is hardly persuasive, no matter how big it is.

real1314

Incisor wrote: »

So what would be the penalty for such a TA? I very much doubt that imposing such a term is actually a crime, ie it is not illegal. More likely the term itself is unenforceable.

OK, so you are right in the court of your own head, but that is hardly persuasive, no matter how big it is.

Ok, you say it's legal but unenforceable if you like. I say it's not a legally enforceable clause. Key words: "not a legally" or is there a shorter form? nb. Where did I say it was a criminal matter? Is that what you're arguing against? What I didn't say?

My head is big, it has to contain my massive brain. But it can be hard to buy hats. :rotfl:


Tozer:- I said I wasn't going fishing for the laws. You agree it's unlawful on the other thread, unlawful but legal. (erm, okaaaaayy :T ).
And the requirement in many ASTs is not that the LL gives permission, but that the LL must be informed of any change. That way the LL is protected (even though they don't need to be) and yet has no power to hold over a tenant that could cause a financial detriment.

Incisor

real1314 wrote: »

... My head is big, it has to contain my massive brain. But it can be hard to buy hats. :rotfl:

I think an appropriately sized legal wig would befit you more.

tbs624

Tozer wrote: »

.........It is a standard provision that any change of supplier must be with the LL's consent - for obvious reasons (they will need to know who is supplying the property they own).

I agree that it often appears as a standard clause but I would say that that doesn't necessarily make it one that could be upheld if challenged. Yes, the LL needs to know, but he can simply be notified so as to fulfil that need rather than effectively seeking to restrict a tenant's choice of supplier.

It does seem a little odd that on the one hand a LL may say to a utility company "that unpaid bill on my property has nothing to do with me: it was my tenant's responsibility" and yet still seek to interfere in the very same contract between tenant & supplier in other ways, either by trying to make a tenant request permission before arrange to switch to a supplier of their own choice or by agreeing to a LA trying to force the tenant into a switch to that s/he does not wish to be party to.

It does not really affect the property as such if the supplier is switched: I could understand it if we were talking about a meter change say to a prepayment meter or a tenant agreeing to a water meter being put in without a LLs consent but given that the account with the suppliers can be subsequently changed again at some point it really should not be an issue for a LL to be involved with IMO.

DGJsaver

Tozer wrote: »

Can you name one consumer law?

It certainly would not be illegal (i.e. an offence to impose it).

It is a standard provision that any change of supplier must be with the LL's consent - for obvious reasons (they will need to know who is supplying the property they own).

Now this is absolute RUBBISH

Up till last year we have rented for over 15 years and have NEVER had this `standard provision`

Please dont go down thre route of making stuff up to suit your argument

Premier_2

tbs624 wrote: »

...The letters are worded in a way that would be construed by many as misleading, and tenants should not feel obliged simply to sign on the dotted line. The fact that the proposed switchover requires the tenants agreement & signature does give a clue that the LA can’t simply do as they please, but the letters that accompany the forms present it as “we will be doing this, now sign here & return the form”. ...

What would happen if you don't sign?

What is the letter asking yopu to sign up to exactly? That the LA takes over the responsibility for the account and becomes the named person on the supply contract?

tbs624 wrote:

Probably because they are getting a cash incentive to do so?

A letting agent who has several hundred tenants on their books will have a nice little earner there, just in case their admin fees, tenancy agreement fees, renewal fees (from both LL & T), deposit registration fees, anything-I-care-to-add fees etc don’t bring in quite enough for them.

...as I asked what happens if you don't sign? How much could they possibly be earning? Perhaps a maximum of £60-£70? That seems to be the maximum cashback for switching suppliers via a cashback site. Compare that to the expense and work they woulkd need to do to find new tenants if they decide to evict you ... not to mention the lack of income for any void period. Whats the average rent today? About £600 say? Typical charge of a LA? About 12% say on a fully managed basis? That equates to £72 pcm - so 1 month lost rental would outweigh any benefit they could get. It doesn't make sense.

tbs624 wrote:

A bog standard contract for supplies is absolutely a matter between tenant and supplier - that is my viewpoint, and if I needed to then I would challenge any LA or LL who wanted to argue otherwise if I were the tenant in their property.:D

What does the mean? Nornally it means you are grinning, so you don't mean it. But by the way you like to argue on this forum., I somehow suspect you would be silly enough to sign a legally binding contract and then waste money in court trying to get yourself out of it

... but then again you can always rely on the saying you didn't really mean what you wrote. Then you can continue to argue whatever is posted :rolleyes:

Tozer

DGJsaver wrote: »

Now this is absolute RUBBISH

Up till last year we have rented for over 15 years and have NEVER had this `standard provision`

Please dont go down thre route of making stuff up to suit your argument

OK, firstly calm yourself down a tad. I think you are getting a bit too excited and a little rude.

It is not rubbish. The provision is on all tenancy agreements which I have seen (and use). I've just looked and it is also on Encyclopedia of Forms and Precedents and Butterworth's Precedents - the two 'standard' databases that lawyers use.

I can assure you, I am not "making stuff up".