Can Landlord Dictate who Provides your Energy?

Wee_Willy_Harris

In these circumstances, reasonableness can be subjective. Fairness, however, is objective.

StudentMoneySaver

When I moved into hellflat (see previous posts), I specifically asked the agent which company provided the electricity, he couldn't tell me (surely an agent should know these things). When we moved in, my flatmate called British Gas (the first one we could think of) and they were able to tell her who supplied the electricity (Scottish Power). It took less than 5 minutes to find this info out.

I agree with previous posters, any term that restricts a Tenant's choice (in a free market) is probably unfair. Unfortunately, a Tenant is bound by what they sign (unless there is an overriding statute) but it would take an idiot, given the compelling case against restricting choice (put forward by the OFT), to challenge in court any breach relating to changing suppliers. The standard practice would be to issues a s.21 and hope for a more compliant tenant.

dodger1

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

In these circumstances, reasonableness can be subjective. Fairness, however, is objective.

I agree up to a point, but if a wide survey of my particular agreement was made and the majority thought it was fair I would say that is objective. It wouldn't be fairness just in my mind. For instance not one of the terms in sebbs post form part of my contract. What he/she lists I agree are very unfair and I wouldn't sign a contract like that.

<sebb>

dodger1 wrote: »

For instance not one of the terms in sebbs post form part of my contract. What he/she lists I agree are very unfair and I wouldn't sign a contract like that.

Agreed, I wouldn't now. But when you are new to renting, and you don't realise you have a choice, you trust that contracts the LAs give you are fair. Actually, in the case of the professional cleaning, we did get it removed from the first contract after so much going back and forth, but it reappeared in the new contract (which I was actually told I was legally obliged to sign as the law had recently been changed and periodic contracts were no longer legal!) and I believed because the LA who knows better than me told me. I was told it was the same contract as before and didn't read it properly. I was naive at the time, and I wont fall for it again.

I know loads of people who fall for things like this. In a recent case, a friend signed a contract that said they had to give 2 months notice to end the FIXED term contract and they missed it by a day. I explained their LA was wrong, but they said their contract said so and they didn't want the hassle of going to court to fight it, wanted a good reference etc, and they had signed the contract so should abide by it so stayed the extra month. The thing is with unfair or wrong terms, if you have a determined LA or LL, then the only way you can get it over turned is to challenge it in court and not everyone wants that.

Wee_Willy_Harris

dodger1 wrote: »

I agree up to a point, but if a wide survey of my particular agreement was made and the majority thought it was fair I would say that is objective. It wouldn't be fairness just in my mind. For instance not one of the terms in sebbs post form part of my contract. What he/she lists I agree are very unfair and I wouldn't sign a contract like that.

Somewhere, in your 15 page agreement, will be terms like "allow the LL or agent to inspect property with 24 hours notice", "Not to attach pictures, paintings or mirrors to walls", usually a dodgy rent arrears term and a restriction on co-habitees. If not, then I have no idea what he filled 15 pages with.

franklee

dodger1 wrote: »

I agree up to a point, but if a wide survey of my particular agreement was made and the majority thought it was fair I would say that is objective. It wouldn't be fairness just in my mind. For instance not one of the terms in sebbs post form part of my contract. What he/she lists I agree are very unfair and I wouldn't sign a contract like that.

I'm basing my opinions on what's fair on OFT356. Many of the tenancy agreements I've read feature at least some of the examples of unfair terms from OFT356.

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

dodger1

franklee wrote: »

I'm basing my opinions on what's fair on OFT356. Many of the tenancy agreements I've read feature at least some of the examples of unfair terms from OFT356.

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

Thanks for the link, it's good to see this in black and white. So far I'm only halfway through the link and so far my contract would be deemed fair by the OFT. I'll see what the second half brings tomorrow. I do agree with everyone that says there are unfair terms in some agreements, some of which have been voiced in this thread but I can only see my agreement which I'm very happy with.

I don't know if this makes any difference but my landlady only uses the agent as a tenant finder. I have no idea if my agreement is any different to a contract where the agents deal with problems. Any problems with the flat I deal directly with the landlady who frankly is brilliant. Again thanks for the link as three members of my family rent at the moment and you never know what the future holds.

dodger1

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Somewhere, in your 15 page agreement, will be terms like "allow the LL or agent to inspect property with 24 hours notice", "Not to attach pictures, paintings or mirrors to walls", usually a dodgy rent arrears term and a restriction on co-habitees. If not, then I have no idea what he filled 15 pages with.

Inspection is covered by "permit the landlord at reasonable hours by prior appointment to enter the property to view the state and condition thereof".

Attaching pictures etc to the walls you are partly correct. It says it can't be done without written prior consent, the agent contacted my landlady prior to signing and agreement was reached and added as an addendum to the agreement.

Rent arrears are covered by "In the event of the breach of any agreements on the part of the tenant and in particular relating to ground 8 in part 1 schedule 2 of the housing act 1988 and grounds 10-15 inclusive and ground 17 in part 2 schedule 2 of the housing act 1988 as amended by the housing act 1996 as follows: both at the time of serving the notice of the intention to commence proceedings and at the time of the court proceedings there is at least two months rent unpaid".

With regard to co-habitees, absolutely nothing.

As far as the 15 pages are concerned the first 2 cover definitions so only 13 are the terms covering both the tenant and landlords obligations.

I've also just signed for a further 12 months at the original rental, that will be 3 1/2 years at the same monthly rental. I'm very happy with my lot.