Unfair tenancy contract terms?

sooz

The mail clause also refers to all those letters addressed to 'the owner/legal owner/occupier'.

Whilst some of this may be junk mail, this also includes all notices of local planning applications.

The clause about putting items back in the same place also speeds up the inventory check out. If the clerk has to spend extra time on the check out, as stuff cannot be found, she charges extra. This cost would then be passed onto the tenant, as they pay for the check out. Also, should items not be found, then the cost, or proportion of cost minus wear & tear, would be chargeable to them. It doesn't mean that every item has to be in EXACTLY the same position as it was at the start, but atleast in the same room/area/cupboard would help.

tbs624

prudryden wrote: »

... Illegal issues might be more of a problem for you, then the LL I would guess, unless you stripped out the place for growing illegal substances.

clutton wrote: »

..you are also not allowed to do anything illegal in the property as this may affect the landlords ability to claim on his insurance.

princeofpounds wrote: »

The immoral bit is just old legal language, and is in there so that any criminal using the property can be evicted on the strength of their criminal activities alone. To make certain grounds for eviction available you need to warn of their potential use in the tenancy agreement.

PoP is right that *some* Grounds for Eviction have to be specifically listed within the TA but this is not one of them (Ground 14 is a Discretionary Ground) Many LLs do like to highlight it though.

Quite simply, the phrase "immoral or illegal" comes directly from the Housing Act's own wording:

Ground 14
The tenant or any other person residing in the dwelling-house has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the dwelling-house or allowing the dwelling-house to be used for immoral or illegal purposes.

As for "old legal language" The specific Housing Act is a relative youngster - 22 years old


If LLs are expecting to be able to curtail Ts behaviour for insurance purposes they must ensure that they give a copy of their insurance policy's Tc & Cs to the T , along with the Tenancy Agreement.

princeofpounds

As for "old legal language" The specific Housing Act is a relative youngster - 22 years old

True, but I don't think lawyers have moved beyond the 18th century in the way they speak sometimes

N79

tbs624 wrote: »

As for "old legal language" The specific Housing Act is a relative youngster - 22 years old

True - but if you exclude secondary legislation, the whole of the UK and exclude housing benefit related acts then there have been 17 "housing" acts since the 1988 act. That must make it a positive antique - and a sign of how they "made em better in the good old days"! (If you include secondary legislation then it is over 500 - no wonder my head hurts).

kmmr

The compensation clause is:

- To pay the Landlord fully for any reasonable costs or damage suffered by the Landlord as a consequence of any breach of the agreements on the part of the Tenant in this Agreement

I assume this relates to the whole agreement, not just the mail redirection issue. I think the general statement 'if you break this agreement, and it costs money, then you have to cover it' - is ok.

As stated already, some mail comes addressed to 'the occupier', which can be VERY important letters. Such as party wall information, local planning applications or Notice No 1's (for development in your own building). So I think it's fair for you to have to forward it on.

IMHO the courts will only assess compensation in severe cases where there was actual financial loss. This could be where you failed to tell your owners about a planning application which severly reduces the value of the property. However, in most cases there is no loss, so I'd just accumulate the mail, and forward it fairly frequently, perhaps more often if something looks official.

And on another issue - I have paid for a years RM redirection, and the service is dire to say the least. I think about 10% of letters are redirected. In fact... even that may be generous. And it costs you nothing to redirect mail, RM seems to cover it for you. If anything, they may charge the final reciever.

My tenants generally take a pragmatic approach. If it looks important, they call me, if it's junk mail and magazines, they just wait til the next time they call me around for a repair!

Annisele

N79 wrote: »

True - but if you exclude secondary legislation, the whole of the UK and exclude housing benefit related acts then there have been 17 "housing" acts since the 1988 act. That must make it a positive antique - and a sign of how they "made em better in the good old days"! (If you include secondary legislation then it is over 500 - no wonder my head hurts).

And some tenants on these forums seem to think that if we could only have a bit more legislation, LLs would all behave themselves beautifully...bless.

N79

kmmr wrote: »

The compensation clause is:

- To pay the Landlord fully for any reasonable costs or damage suffered by the Landlord as a consequence of any breach of the agreements on the part of the Tenant in this Agreement

I assume this relates to the whole agreement, not just the mail redirection issue. I think the general statement 'if you break this agreement, and it costs money, then you have to cover it' - is ok.

As you say, it is OK if not really necessary as this would be the case irrespective of whether the clause is in the agreement.

As stated already, some mail comes addressed to 'the occupier', which can be VERY important letters. Such as party wall information, local planning applications or Notice No 1's (for development in your own building). So I think it's fair for you to have to forward it on.


IMHO the courts will only assess compensation in severe cases where there was actual financial loss. This could be where you failed to tell your owners about a planning application which severly reduces the value of the property. However, in most cases there is no loss, so I'd just accumulate the mail, and forward it fairly frequently, perhaps more often if something looks official.

Quite correct and reasonable.

And on another issue - I have paid for a years RM redirection, and the service is dire to say the least. I think about 10% of letters are redirected. In fact... even that may be generous. And it costs you nothing to redirect mail, RM seems to cover it for you. If anything, they may charge the final reciever.

My tenants generally take a pragmatic approach. If it looks important, they call me, if it's junk mail and magazines, they just wait til the next time they call me around for a repair!

I've never used the redirection service so I don't know how good it is. I dont have any mail going to any of my properties so only a bit of junk mail gets sent from where companies have sold on the address but it is still important to get the planning applications - I had one that I had to object to only a few months ago.

ET1976

clutton wrote: »

it does not cost anything at all to cross out the name and put the new address on the outside of the envelope and put it into the letter box.

I thought you weren't allowed to do this anymore? I've been putting all my old tenants' mail in a new envelope and putting a stamp on it...

Sammy85_2

ET1976 wrote: »

I thought you weren't allowed to do this anymore? I've been putting all my old tenants' mail in a new envelope and putting a stamp on it...

I just stick it in the letter box with new address on or "not known at this address"

Sammy85_2

kmmr wrote: »

The compensation clause is:
And on another issue - I have paid for a years RM redirection, and the service is dire to say the least. I think about 10% of letters are redirected. In fact... even that may be generous. And it costs you nothing to redirect mail, RM seems to cover it for you. If anything, they may charge the final reciever.

I keep getting post for the old owners. She was mortified that i was getting so much post when i went round with it, she even proved to me she had paid for redirection for the full year. Luckily i drive past their house to get off the estate, so i dont mind dropping it off.