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
Comments
-
Are you still here?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
Just did this search:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=assured+shorthold+tenancy+agreement+landlord+supplier+&btnG=Google+Search
Picked the second (non-subscription) entry, being the first that actually provided a typical ASTA:
http://www.salford.gov.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancy-v2-aug2008.pdf
and read term 2.11
2.11 Not to change the supplier of domestic utilities or services referred to in the above clauses without prior consent of the landlord or his agent. Such consent will not be unreasonably with held. Where such consent is given, the tenant undertakes to promptly provide the landlord or his agent with full details of the new supplier and account numbers etc
Just because you haven't seen such a term before, doesn't mean the post is "absolute rubbish"."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 -
Tozer , stop being so sensitive
You claiming things as `standard` when in fact they are not `standard ` is a poor show
Dont do it to suit your argument
Regards0 -
Tozer
THIS is rude
But i`m not bothered....
Not from me though. Not sensitive, I just think you are getting a bit het up. Try and calm it down so that we have a constructive debate. OK?
I disagree that it is not standard. As stated - the precedent systems which 99% of lawyers use have the provisions in the landlord-biased precedents. Therefore, it is standard to my mind.
Premier has also pointed to another source. With respect, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean to say it is not standard.0 -
Not from me though. Not sensitive, I just think you are getting a bit het up. Try and calm it down so that we have a constructive debate. OK?
I disagree that it is not standard. As stated - the precedent systems which 99% of lawyers use have the provisions in the landlord-biased precedents. Therefore, it is standard to my mind.
Premier has also pointed to another source. With respect, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean to say it is not standard.
Ok mate , thats fair enough and i apologise .
As for the issue in hand , not all AST`s or similar are penned by Lawyers or put together with advice from lawyers , we have had one , that was from a lawyer (she was the LL) and it didnt mention the energy thing at all , maybe this is because the accounts that are set up with the energy companys are with the person , not the property...?0 -
...... you can continue to argue whatever is posted :rolleyes:
Premier - as I said before: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. ..
and....
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.
Anyway, I’ll try to answer the questions in the rest of your post
What would happen if you don't sign?
<Sigh> - that’s the point. The LA cannot IMO insist that the tenant sign but unfortunately the letters are worded in a way that would lead most tenants to believe otherwise.
What is the letter asking you to sign up to exactly? That the LA takes over the responsibility for the account and becomes the named person on the supply contract?
No, that the tenant will switch their gas & electricity supplies from their current supplier to this one particular company that the LA intends to be used at all the properties on their books. The wording of the letter does not indicate “asking” but “telling” the tenant that this will be done.
... 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. ………It doesn't make sense.
Much of what LAs do doesn’t make sense IMO.
My view is that effectively the LA can do nothing if a tenant doesn’t sign, but that much is not clear to the tenant because of the wording of the letter: in all probability the majority of tenants will simply sign & return the form, possibly incurring larger utility bills than they had before and at the same time allowing the LA to gain commission on the switch.
The next step may well be for LAs to consider amending these letters after tenant/advice worker/legal adviser complaints to say “you can of course stay with the supplier of your own choice but this will incur a bung , sorry fee, to us”
Tenants who are on a short-term contract, & who are otherwise reasonably happy with their tenancy, will undoubtedly feel under pressure to comply so as to avoid any possible difficulty over renewal. Most tenants get to the stage with some LLs and some LAs where they daren’t “cross” them for fear of losing their home
This is the crux Premier - that the way this is done has the capacity to place the tenant at a huge disadvantage.
That is clearly wrong: it is not a reasonable way for LAs to conduct their business and I have already said that, in a number of cases, LLs had not been told by the LAs that this was being put into practice.
I think that some tenants *do* choose to give their own notice in when LAs do this sort of thing and the LA then offers bovine manure explanations to the LL who wants to know what has happened and why he is now facing a couple of month’s void.
LAs and LLs simply cannot afford to play games like this with tenants - all that will happen in the long run is that LLs and LAs will be subject to ever- increasing govt regulation.
As I said previously my view is that tenants who are paying for their own gas and electricity supplies should have a free choice of supplier: the contract for those supplies is extraneous to a tenancy agreement. All that should be required is that the LA or LL is notified of which company is used.
0 -
Ok mate , thats fair enough and i apologise .
As for the issue in hand , not all AST`s or similar are penned by Lawyers or put together with advice from lawyers , we have had one , that was from a lawyer (she was the LL) and it didnt mention the energy thing at all , maybe this is because the accounts that are set up with the energy companys are with the person , not the property...?
No worries.
A lot of agents use old precedents. When we rented a property, I took a red pen to the agreement as parts of it were either badly drafted or simply wrong.0 -
It's impossible to tell whilst you still have not posted what the letter actually says....<Sigh> - that’s the point. The LA cannot IMO insist that the tenant sign but unfortunately the letters are worded in a way that would lead most tenants to believe otherwise....
...The wording of the letter does not indicate “asking” but “telling” the tenant that this will be done...
Is that so
Premier wrote:...... you can continue to argue whatever is posted :rolleyes:
It either says it will be done or it doesn't - perhaps it just implies it. I would be surprised the LA could do it without the co-operation of the tenants anyway - they would normally need all the meter numbers to transfer and then the reading values for when they transfer.
Normally the account holder also gets 2 letters, one from the new supplier welcoming them as a new customer in the near future and one by the existing supplier saying 'sorry you're leaving'
Two chances for the tenant (assuming the tenant is the named account holder) to dispute with their existing supplier who requested such a change, what authority did they have and to request the change not to go ahead. There's normally a good couple of weeks between these letters going out and any switch actually taking place. Any indication by the account holder not to switch should see such switch cancelled."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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards