Dog in rented flat - admin charges. Help!

Wee_Willy_Harris

And one of those services is tenancy management. A service that they have already been paid to provide. I would have thought that an enquiry from the tenant, following by clarification from the LL would come under this already well rewarded heading.

princeofpounds

It's very simple. A contract exists between the LL and T. The A has drafted the initial contract and perhaps signed on behalf of LL, but is not party to the contract in any way.

As with any contract, the two parties can amend the contract by mutual agreement. The words are only binding if one party seeks to make them binding.

In short, the original AST does not even need to be changed. A letter from the landlord giving permission to have a dog is enough. Technically you don't even need a letter, but of course it's the easiest way to provide proof if it is ever required.

The A really has nothing to do with this except trying to charge extortionate amounts for the use of their photocopier.

Milliewilly

As Tiddlywinks says, if Romans are totally managing the property eg sending people out when things get broken etc then its not unreasonable for them to amend the contract to cover sending workmen in for repairs or cleaning or whatever that may arise because of the Dog being there.

Think what a solicitor charges for sending a letter out.

The Tenant has moved the goalposts and is now facing a small admin charge. I can't see the problem with that.

Many Landlords would have refused a Dog point blank (especially in a flat with the barking etc) so I would be grateful one is allowed and just get on with my life.

Notlob

Milliewilly wrote: »

Hmmmm. Let's think about the clues logically from the information given:

OP says they have got permission to get a dog from the Landlord. Lettings agent say they now need to amend the contract and want a fee. Wonder what change has occurred to cause the letting agent to need to make an amendment to the contract?

I await the OP's response, the suspense of not knowing why is killing me.....

Again you are assuming the contract requires amendment; why?

The purpose of the question was to encourage the OP to review the relevant clause of the tenancy Agreement. If the agreement has been wording considering the OFT guidelines on unfair terms and conditions, then the following clause, or similar, will apply - "not to keep pets without the prior written consent of the Landlord or the Landlord’s Agent".

If the above clause applies, the landlord's written consent is enough and no amendment required.

Notlob

Tiddlywinks

Notlob wrote: »

Again you are assuming the contract requires amendment; why?

The purpose of the question was to encourage the OP to review the relevant clause of the tenancy Agreement. If the agreement has been wording considering the OFT guidelines on unfair terms and conditions, then the following clause, or similar, will apply - "not to keep pets without the prior written consent of the Landlord or the Landlord’s Agent".

If the above clause applies, the landlord's written consent is enough and no amendment required.

Notlob

The letting agent fully manages the property and has had to facilitate an agreed change to the tenants' circumstances - I feel they have a right to charge for this additional work if they have been involved in this request.

The LL pays Romans to manage the property - that would not include a post-contract request to keep a dog. It's an additional service so why shouldn't the tenant expect to pay? LLs and agents are running a business, someone has to pay for the additional work and why shouldn't it be the tenants as they are the ones instigating the required change?

TastyTeeth

Milliewilly wrote: »

The Tenant has moved the goalposts and is now facing a small admin charge. I can't see the problem with that.

I'd hardly call £117 a small admin charge! That's pretty steep in my experience.

Milliewilly

TastyTeeth wrote: »

I'd hardly call £117 a small admin charge! That's pretty steep in my experience.

What do you usually pay for changes like this in your experience to give us some comparables?

The only ones talking any sense on here are me and Tiddlywinks.

princeofpounds

Arrggghhh this is madness!

You shouldn't NORMALLY pay anything for this, because there is no need to involve the letting agents at all!

Once again from the top

- the contract is between LL and T.
- if both parties agree they can amend the contract however they like. Even verbally, although that's not sensible for evidential reasons.
- it doesn't matter what the current contract says (whether it is a blanket ban or a permission situation) in the slightest if both parties are happy to override that clause with a subsequent contract.

If you are pushing it, the only thing the A could possibly contribute in this situation is a) a photocopier and b) some 'expertise' in drafting a replacement clause that says 'you may now have a dog'.

Any half-witted fool of a LL can write that in a letter, sign it, and the T can accept it. Done.

A contract is not a law that becomes binding forever more, it is a just a formalised agreement between two counterparties. If the agreement changes, so can the contract.

Tiddlywinks

princeofpounds wrote: »

You shouldn't NORMALLY pay anything for this, because there is no need to involve the letting agents at all!


If you are pushing it, the only thing the A could possibly contribute in this situation is a) a photocopier and b) some 'expertise' in drafting a replacement clause that says 'you may now have a dog'.

However, in this situation the tenant HAS involved the letting agent (which I can understand as they manage the property) and the agent is asking for payment for the admin involved.

The tenants asked the agent to help them negotiate to change the terms of a contract. The terms have now changed and a charge is to be raised for the agent's time and effort. If they had not asked for a dog then the agent would not have incurred additional work.

There is more to the cost of providing a service than the "photocopying" alone - I can see nothing wrong with the agent making a charge as the tenant has used their services.

Landlords and agents are not charities, they don't work for nothing - they are in it for profit so let's be realistic here.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

However, in this situation the tenant HAS involved the letting agent (which I can understand as they manage the property) and the agent is asking for payment for the admin involved.

The tenants asked the agent to help them negotiate to change the terms of a contract. The terms have now changed and a charge is to be raised for the agent's time and effort. If they had not asked for a dog then the agent would not have incurred additional work.

There is more to the cost of providing a service than the "photocopying" alone - I can see nothing wrong with the agent making a charge as the tenant has used their services.

Landlords and agents are not charities, they don't work for nothing - they are in it for profit so let's be realistic here.

£117!!!???

For the work experience girl to cross out the word "not"????