Can Landlord Dictate who Provides your Energy?

Wee_Willy_Harris

sequence wrote: »

I'd just plain ignore any LL who tried to dictate energy supplier.

But some LLs rely on the fact that you don't know about that option.

Ignite

Page 109 of the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on unfair terms in Tenancy Agreements states in their examples of unfair terms that "[The tenant must not] change the utility supplier without the landlord's consent in writing." is a potentially unreasonable restriction and should be deleted. From this, it seems that the OFT guidance is that you can choose who you like to supply your energy.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf

Fire_Fox

GDB2222 wrote: »

Well, it starts with however long it takes to travel to the property to get the meter numbers. Then phoning around - not just one phone call. There's also a learning curve to find out whom to phone. It's not that hard, but it's a PITA if you have a full-time job to do. Not such a problem if you are retired, I guess. A number of reasonable remedies have been suggested above, which I agree with, and checking my current tenancy agreement I note that it doesn't have anything in telling the tenant not to change energy suppliers.

:eek: It was your decision and thus your problem you have a full time job as well as being a landlord! Would you accept your tenant failing to report water ingress which damages your property for five days because they "have a full time job"? If your tenant is paying market rent they should expect a professional service, being too busy is an amateur excuse. The learning curve is your problem too, do you make your inexperience your clients' problem in your salaried role too?

DawnW

tbs624 wrote: »

It's both LAs and LLs who self-manage their properties who are giving this a go. get all their Ts signed up in one fell swoop

Nope, I am a LL who self-manages, and I most certainly do not - though I only let one house

It was with British Gas when the tenants moved in 2 and a half years ago, and I suggested they change to the cheapest deal they could find, and just let me know who it was with. They didn't bother though :eek:

anniecave

If as a landlord you own a property then surely you will at some point have had to pay a gas or electricity bill for it... ? (from the day you bought it up to the date when you got a tennant in ... or when you lived there ...)

on those gas or electricity bills there is the unique MPR (for gas) or MPAN (for elec). As a previous poster says, there is one number to phone for gas, and another number for electricity depending on your area.

So as long as you have the MPR and MPAN number available somewhere handy for each property you would always be able to get the information.

Or alternatively when you do checkout make a note of the meter serial number and the meter readings and you can phone the same numbers and they can search by the serial numbers

Sarsie

DrScotsman wrote: »

Because there is no way that £100 is anywhere near the correct figure for the LL's actual loss/inconvenience.

Doesn't matter what the sum is, it was £50 for the sake of a suggestion.

DrScotsman wrote: »

and is unenforceable.

Eh? It's not an enforcement I'm talking about it's a deposit deduction.

Sarsie

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Why stop there?

£50 if you don't provide a forwarding address.
£50 if you fail to notify a mobile number change
£50 if you fail to get your post re-directed

In fact, £50 whenever the LL has to do anything that would normally be done by.... um.... a landlord.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, your reputation as a LL who keeps deposits on the thinest of pretexts soon spreads and your left with the kind of tenants who will trash your house as a matter of principle.

I'd steer clear of being a LL if I was you, you're just not cut out for it.

Do we have to have personal derrisions in here? It was just a suggestion for exploration, there's no need to be offhand.

If being the sort of person who looks at a problem and starts looking for a more acceptable solution civily and politely makes me not cut out to do business with in your opinion then ok, I shalln't interrupt your business any further.

I wish you much plain sailing in life.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Sarsie wrote: »

Do we have to have personal derrisions in here? It was just a suggestion for exploration, there's no need to be offhand.

If being the sort of person who looks at a problem and starts looking for a more acceptable solution civily and politely makes me not cut out to do business with in your opinion then ok, I shalln't interrupt your business any further.

I wish you much plain sailing in life.

Oh, I think your suggestion has been explored. In fact, I'd say landlords have been exploring it so well that legislation has had to be brought in to ensure the exploration stops.

Your solution may seem "acceptable" to you, but it's just the kind of solution some landlords have always used to steal their tenants deposits.

As I've consistently stated on this thread, finding out who the gas/elecricity supplier is for an individual property is the work of a moment, and hardly a major issue in the overall scheme of things. The last thing landlords and LA's need is another vehicle to penalise their tenants.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Sarsie wrote: »

Eh? It's not an enforcement I'm talking about it's a deposit deduction.

You make it sound as if getting the full deposit returned is some sort of privilege, a bonus, an act of extreme generosity and largesse by the landlord, rather than the right that it actually is.

DrScotsman

Sarsie wrote: »

Doesn't matter what the sum is, it was £50 for the sake of a suggestion.
Eh? It's not an enforcement I'm talking about it's a deposit deduction.

Of course it matters what the sum is and of course it's an enforcement you're talking about. The landlord can only make deposit deductions if it's money he's legally entitled to, and both the deposit schemes and the judges will ensure that (the former who I'm lead to believe either fair or biased towards tenants, the latter who are of course fair)

Excessive penalty clauses - clauses demanding more money than the injured party's loss - are unenforceable in these circumstances (indeed most circumstances) by the legislation I linked you to (and by lots of case law). You can go on and on about how the contract was agreed to and hence it's absolute (as many people do when this legislation is mentioned on these forums) but the fact is the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and the case law are the law, and they apply in this case.

Or much more concisely, I think Wee Willy Harris said it best:

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You make it sound as if getting the full deposit returned is some sort of privilege, a bonus, an act of extreme generosity and largesse by the landlord, rather than the right that it actually is.