New tenancy: LL wants to add strange clause to contract?

N79

angrypirate wrote: »

Landlord is being completely unreasonable. I suggest one of 2 things:

It is not completely unreasonable (or even unreasonable) for a LL to exclude the repair of items for which they have no statutory obligation to maintain. It is not very reasonable to reduce the level service provided without also reducing the rent but maybe that is happening after (but maybe the reduction is in the form of a lower rent than is normal for this type of property).

Say that you will take responsibility for organising the repair of white goods, but the cost or repair will be deducted from your rent upon production of receipt.

If this clause is not added to the tenancy agreement then this will merely leave the T in breach of their contract, in rent arrears and liable to eviction which is not a sensible place for any T to go. A better approach would be to either negotiate a rent that reflects the T liability to repair the items or to negotiate away the clause.

If they say no, then walk away - you know this LL is going to be worthless scum who will probably try and hold onto your desposit. LA has an obligation to return your holding desposit as negotiations willl falll through on contract terms (unreasonable ones at that).

It is not an unreasonable contract term at all where it is clear and the LL and T understand it. Whether the holding deposit should be returned will depend on the terms which applied to it. If the LL has added this clause after the holding agreement was taken then I agree that it should be returned. If the T was given a copy of the tenancy agreement before the holding deposit was taken (but has only now seen this clause) then the holding deposit can rightly be kept by the LL.

deviruchi

The clause is a new one that the LL is wanting to add after I've seen a standard tenancy agreement and have paid the holding deposit on that basis.

The cooker is electric, as is the heating - I don't think there's anything gas in the building, so it's still a bit puzzling why he would leave that out of the clause.

There are always a lot of properties to let for my budget in the area, so I'm thinking it's probably best to let this one go. I hadn't budgeted for buying my own white goods (which I agree would be a good thing to do in this situation), and I'm confident I'll be able to find something that I like just as much as this one, hopefully in as little time as ~2-3 weeks.

Thanks again for everyone's help!

princeofpounds

Maybe there is just less likelihood of the cooker breaking down. Washing machines and dishwashers are always more of a problem as they have more moving parts.

If moving on is the best option for you, that's great for teaching him a lesson. Even a week's void is probably enough to buy a third of an entirely new machine.

joerugby

deviruchi wrote: »

The clause is a new one that the LL is wanting to add after I've seen a standard tenancy agreement and have paid the holding deposit on that basis.

The cooker is electric, as is the heating - I don't think there's anything gas in the building, so it's still a bit puzzling why he would leave that out of the clause.

There are always a lot of properties to let for my budget in the area, so I'm thinking it's probably best to let this one go. I hadn't budgeted for buying my own white goods (which I agree would be a good thing to do in this situation), and I'm confident I'll be able to find something that I like just as much as this one, hopefully in as little time as ~2-3 weeks.

Thanks again for everyone's help!

Good decision!

Milkybarsareonme

NO, no, no. That LL cannot make the law up to suit Him as He goes along. If He is letting His property as 'fully furnished' or 'part furnished' then HE has the responsibility to maintain those goods that are included in the 'Inventory' (there should be one for every letting to protect LL and T)

I presume the property would be of a lower rental value should He have let it to you 'unfurnished'? In this instance, why should you pay extra for items you will more than likely need to repair yourself. Believe me, the cost of just having someone look at your washing machine or boiler is not cheap. Can you afford it? Are you prepared to pay this on top of the rent?

You should explain to the 'Agent' that a term or clause added AFTER you agreed, even by handshake, is not legal practice and they, therefore, are legally not allowed to withold your holding fee as you believe you were falsely led into contract. Any reputable 'Agent' should know housing law and should know LL's cannot do this.

I strongly advise you not to take on such property as LL has clearly led an early bad example of how unprofessional He is.

Nixer

I'd ask for lower rent (and for him to remove the items) as he's effectively letting to you unfurnished. But if he's causing trouble before you've even moved in you might be better off elsewhere.

moromir

Milkybarsareonme wrote: »

NO, no, no. That LL cannot make the law up to suit Him as He goes along. If He is letting His property as 'fully furnished' or 'part furnished' then HE has the responsibility to maintain those goods that are included in the 'Inventory' (there should be one for every letting to protect LL and T)

I presume the property would be of a lower rental value should He have let it to you 'unfurnished'? In this instance, why should you pay extra for items you will more than likely need to repair yourself. Believe me, the cost of just having someone look at your washing machine or boiler is not cheap. Can you afford it? Are you prepared to pay this on top of the rent?

This has been debated in great detail on this forum, with the benefit of backing up the points with legislation and I would strongly suggest looking up those threads before accepting this post as the gospel truth.

Milkybarsareonme

moromir wrote: »

This has been debated in great detail on this forum, with the benefit of backing up the points with legislation and I would strongly suggest looking up those threads before accepting this post as the gospel truth.

"
What can I do if the agreement is unfair?

Your agreement, whether a tenancy or a licence, should be written in straightforward language that you can understand. It shouldn't contain any unfair terms, such as clauses saying:

• that the landlord can change the terms of the agreement whenever s/he likes
• that you have to pay for, or arrange, structural repairs - these are the landlord's responsibility
• that your landlord can come round whenever s/he likes, without giving notice (this might be classed as harassment).

Unfair terms are not legally binding. If you think your agreement includes unfair terms or you landlord is holding you to something you don't think is fair, ask an adviser to look at the agreement for you. The Office of Fair Trading has more information about unfair terms and how to complain."


Taken directly from the SHELTER ENGLAND Website.

deviruchi

A bit of an update: I told the agent on Monday that I didn't want to proceed with the tenancy and was told "You do realise you'll lose the money you've paid so far?", to which I said I was expecting my money back as the LL was insisting on different terms to the ones I had paid the holding deposit on. They said they'd speak to the manager and call back.

Two days of silence followed (except a call from another of their employees who asked when I wanted to go through the inventory! They clearly don't communicate with each other). I was gearing myself up to have to have an argument with them, and then this afternoon I was pleasantly surprised to receive an email from them stating they were refunding the holding deposit and that I should get it in a few days.

However, they made no mention of the signing fee (over £150!), and I think I should also be entitled to get this back - if they agree I should get the holding deposit back, surely the same must apply to the fee.

theartfullodger

Good!

In your shoes I'd get the holding deposit ( and put it in a bank if it is a cheque) then email/write polite calm letter querying why they have mysteriously forgotten and left out the other £150... (just might prompt them to return that..)

If that don't work send them the draft of a small-claims court case and ask would the prefer to go that route or to reach an amicable settlement (ie pay it all back..).

Greedy so-'n-sos....


Cheers!

Artful