Contract Term(s) for tenants' protection

PasturesNew

You should get lots of this in: http://www.firstaidwarehouse.co.uk/pic/280x280/02/42/cotton_wool_balls_small_242.jpg

Jowo_2

franklee wrote: »

We don't know what the proposed contract in the OPs case is like...

I'm basing my analysis on the fact that the OP is disturbed by an absence of particular clauses that he would prefer to be present. They may not be present on the AST but their absence on them does not weaken the tenants position, nor are the ones he's mentioned usually present on them.

The odd suggested one is just plain daft and completely unenforceable. For example, - "If either a major or non-major issue remains unresolved for a reasonable period, tenants retain the right to terminate the contract without notice period".

Nonsense - tenants are obligated to continue with their legally binding commitment to the duration of the contract and its notice periods unless a landlord agrees to an early surrender, as per housing law. If tenants can show that the contract has been frustrated for a major reason or the property is uninhabitable, there is already protection in law.

They can't just toss aside the contract for a 'non-major issue' - no property is immune from maintenance issues and some are caused by the behaviour of tenants or are aggravated by lack of availability of engineers or parts. Try getting a roofer after a heavy storm or a good plumber on a Saturday night.

It cuts both ways. A landlord is legally obligated to continue undertaking repairs and respecting the terms of the contract even when tenants trash the property or stop paying rent. A landlord cannot produce a clause stipulating that they retain the right to terminate the contract without notice period in the even that the tenant slightly annoys the neighbours or does major damage!

In both instances, there are various solutions or potential penalties that come into play when addressed in the right manner.

franklee

PasturesNew wrote: »

You should get lots of this in: http://www.firstaidwarehouse.co.uk/pic/280x280/02/42/cotton_wool_balls_small_242.jpg

:idea: ......

franklee

Crabman wrote: »

The lease contract itself is apparently a template but the letting agent has told one of the new tenants that any repairs are 'between them and the landlord'.

Have you asked if the agent is to manage the tenancy or if the landlord is self managing and the agent was tenant find only. This can make a big difference to how repairs are conducted depending on which of the LA/LL is better or worse.

clutton_2

""http://www.firstaidwarehouse.co.uk/p..._small_242.jpg

clearly someone thinks tenants need wrapping up in cotton wool......

Crabman

Thanks for the replies. It's obvious that these self-made terms don't need to be included and would be pointless anyway so thanks for making that clear.

Of course as long as the LL/LA are reasonable, there is not going to be an issue.

Not clear whether the LA is a managing agent, I'll need to find out with tenants. I've had a chat with the member of staff at the LA who's handling this, seems nice enough.

I think an important point is when the tenants put further questions to the LA prior to signing the contract, they should do this via email so there is evidence in the unlikely event of dispute.

Out of interest Jowo, when you say:

Jowo wrote:

In both instances, there are various solutions or potential penalties that come into play when addressed in the right manner.

Purely out of interest, what sort of solutions/penalties are we talking about here?

Jowo_2

Crabman wrote: »

Purely out of interest, what sort of solutions/penalties are we talking about here?

Here's a flavour of various issues and the way they can be addressed and the way the landlord can be punished.

If a landlord is obliged to have a HMO licence and doesn't have it, they can be prosecuted and fined up to 20k. Landlords who are committing the breach, cannot use it as an excuse to evict their tenants rather than comply. in certain cases, the tenants or the local housing authority may apply to a residential property tribunal to reclaim rent via a rent repayment order if a landlord is found to be operating a licensable HMO without a licence.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/rentingandletting/privaterenting/housesmultiple/

If a landlord does not comply with health and safety requirements - dodgy electrics, damp, no heating/hot water, broken stairs, etc - a tenant can contact the local authority who may, through their environmental health department, undertake an assessment of the property and compel the landlord to comply with its findings. Separate to this, it is a criminal offence for a landlord not to provide a gas safety certificate for boilers and appliances on an annual basis and they can be prosecuted, fined and imprisoned for thos.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/rentingandletting/housinghealth/
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/gas_safety.htm

Most ASTs issues in E&W require the landlord to protect the deposit in a tenancy deposit scheme and notify the tenants promptly of the details. Tenants can be awarded x3 the sum of the deposit by a court for non-compliance by the landlord. The landlord cannot issue an S21 (notice to quit) to evict tenants if they have not protected the deposit - it invalidates the notice and the case would get chucked out in court.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/rentingandletting/privaterenting/tenancydepositprotection/

Tenants are entitled to 'quiet enjoyment' of the property in housing law so any kind of harassment by the landlord can be a criminal offence and the tenants can persue the landlord through the civil court for compensation. Similarly, if a landlord illegally evicts a tenant, it is a criminal offence and the police can let the tenants back into the property if they report this happening and the landlord cannot demonstrate that they've got a court order for possession.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/harassment.htm

Crabman

Hi folks

Followed advice and they've put details in writing. One issue that has arisen is that of the move-in date. It was obviously supposed to be the weekend before term officially begins, and this was confirmed in an email to the Letting Agent.

Now the LA is saying he thought they were moving in a week earlier. This was objected to and he then claimed this is what was agreed despite the obvious evidence suggesting otherwise.

The holding deposit was paid after this email confirming move-in dates and other details was sent. There was therefore no excuse for this 'misunderstanding'.

What would you advise now? He is going to speak to the landlord and is making it look like the tenants have changed their mind when this problem is entirely of his making. Yet my line on this is that the correct date was agreed and that the LA is now proposing a change to that date which the tenants have the right to consider and reject.

I don't think dropping this house and looking for another one is a popular option with the prospective tenants, as it took a while for them to find this one which is in a nice area and generally suitable in terms of location.

The referencing forms (tenant reference and guarantor) are ready to send to the LA but I'm not sure whether these should not be submitted until this issue is cleared up.

Thanks for the excellent advice above which is appreciated

clutton_2

wait till you get an agreed moving in date - you can sign an agreement now and not have it put into force until a date in the future