Advice needed - "Late" Rent charges

whambamboo

real1314 wrote:

And your ability to read is appalling:
From the OFT document:

"[The tenant must] pay the reasonable costs of the Landlord's Agent for each letter the Agent, acting reasonably, has to send to the tenant concerning breaches of the tenancy agreement."

and

"The tenant is responsible for any reasonable costs reasonably incurred required to compensate the landlord for any breach of obligation on the tenant's part."

I shan't bother checking anything else you've said, as you've reprimanded me for not reading something that you linked to that wasn't even in the thread, and you haven't even read it properly yourself. Hardly worth reading ill-informed criticism.

I think your attitude is pathetic, but my view is backed up by evidence (that you provided).

On the very same page you've quoted it says:

UNFAIR TERM:

"Should it be necessary to send a letter with regards to late payment of rent, these are chargeable to the tenant at a rate of £35 plus VAT."

This is near identical to the original post. It says very clearly that a £35 + vat charge (which is near as damnit the £40 of the original post) is illegal.

Re "The tenant is responsible for any reasonable costs reasonably incurred required to compensate the landlord for any breach of obligation on the tenant's part."

If I sit here writing this post, it has cost me nothing. Sending a letter to a tenant costs 30p for the stamp plus say 5p for ink + stationery. Total costs 35p. My time has not cost me anything. I might earn £100/hr in my normal job, another landlord earns £5/hr, but either way that's not the tenant's concern.

You also said: "Interest can be charged from the first day that the payment is overdue too."

And yet, the OFT says that a fair term would be 14 days:
"To pay interest at the rate of x per centum per annum above the base minimum lending rate of [name] Bank on any rent or other money lawfully due which is in arrears for more than fourteen days after the day on which it became due."

real1314

You really need to THINK before you post.

Even from the start of your assumptions about the OFT document you are completely WRONG.

The OFT doument is about terms they "consider" to be "potentially unfair".
That doesn't mean it is unfair, it's for the courts to decide.

Also, you somewhat contradict yourself, stating that landlords can't charge because they are not banks. Then you say that landlords shouldn't see letting as income, but as a business. So are banks not a form of business? And they can charge? So???

There's really little point bothering posting links if you don't bother to read what you've linked to. It doesn't say the £35+vat charge is illegal at all. Read it again.

As you've already stated that landlords are a business, then they CAN charge for time, plus stationery, postage etc.

Dear oh dear, you really have a bee in your bonnet about this, slagging people off, commenting on people's "attitude" and basing all of this on a poor reading of a document that you fail to understand the basic principles of.

I have to say that I think your attitude really stinks, attacking people on the basis of what is evidently a personal prejudice. sad.

whambamboo

real1314 wrote:

You really need to THINK before you post.

Even from the start of your assumptions about the OFT document you are completely WRONG.

The OFT doument is about terms they "consider" to be "potentially unfair".
That doesn't mean it is unfair, it's for the courts to decide.

Also, you somewhat contradict yourself, stating that landlords can't charge because they are not banks. Then you say that landlords shouldn't see letting as income, but as a business. So are banks not a form of business? And they can charge? So???

There's really little point bothering posting links if you don't bother to read what you've linked to. It doesn't say the £35+vat charge is illegal at all. Read it again.

As you've already stated that landlords are a business, then they CAN charge for time, plus stationery, postage etc.

Dear oh dear, you really have a bee in your bonnet about this, slagging people off, commenting on people's "attitude" and basing all of this on a poor reading of a document that you fail to understand the basic principles of.

I have to say that I think your attitude really stinks, attacking people on the basis of what is evidently a personal prejudice. sad.

Sorry, you're desperately clutching at straws now.

Firstly your suggestion that the OFT document of unfair terms would not be held up in court is a pretty feeble defence, given that the Office of Fair Trading are the body responsible for this issue, and have HUGE amounts of expertise in the areas. You are right that the courts would decide it, but I would bet you a pound to a penny that if I went to the small claims court against a landlord with that clause in his contract I would win. I have taken people to court on quite a few occasions, and I can tell you the judge is not interested in some wannabe amateur barrister like yourself trying to argue about the law.

Secondly, it's abundantly clear that a £35 charge for writing a letter is absolutely illegal - have you not heard about all those banks refunding charges for near identical charges? In fact the OFT has ruled that all charges over £12 for sending letters for going over credit card limits are *all* presumed to be illegal, and those below £12 may also be illegal depending on cricumstances.

Thirdly, yes, the term is part of a larger term described as unfair by the OFT, but they wouldn't have used £35 + VAT is clearly intended to show that is unfair.

Once again, your attitude stinks. This site is called "moneysavingexpert".

In case you hadn't noticed:

"MoneySaving is about cutting bills not cutting back. It's about being a sassy consumer. Companies try to screw us for profits. MoneySaving shows you how to screw them back."

How do you fall into that charging people £40 to send a letter? If you want to do such things, I suggest you do so on "greedylandlords.com", as this "MoneySavingExpert.com".

And by the way, if you were my landlord I will not hesitate to sue you.

MissSunshine

Anyway back to the OP

RobKingston wrote:

To those who've asked, the standing order was set up by the agents (as the new one will be). However I have full control over it via online banking and if anything is out of order I'll be able to correct it straight away.

IMHO the agents were a bit keen with the late payment charge, but downright cheeky to apply it when they set up the SO, hardly your fault they didn't take the w/e into account, did you point this out to them?

real1314

whambamboo wrote:

Sorry, you're desperately clutching at straws now.

Firstly your suggestion that the OFT document of unfair terms would not be held up in court is a pretty feeble defence, given that the Office of Fair Trading are the body responsible for this issue, and have HUGE amounts of expertise in the areas. You are right that the courts would decide it, but I would bet you a pound to a penny that if I went to the small claims court against a landlord with that clause in his contract I would win. I have taken people to court on quite a few occasions, and I can tell you the judge is not interested in some wannabe amateur barrister like yourself trying to argue about the law.

Q: Which issue are OFT responislbe for? Contracts and the Law?
I think you're the one that's mistaken. The Law is comprised of Acts and Common Law, OFT opinions don't really come into it. OFT are not responsible for Renting issues that's ODPM, now Constitutional Affairs (I think). I'm assuming you are a genuine barrister, as you're (again) using name calling with your "wanna be " barrister stuff? Petty again, but....and which clause was it inparticular?


Secondly, it's abundantly clear that a £35 charge for writing a letter is absolutely illegal - have you not heard about all those banks refunding charges for near identical charges? In fact the OFT has ruled that all charges over £12 for sending letters for going over credit card limits are *all* presumed to be illegal, and those below £12 may also be illegal depending on cricumstances.

OFT cannot rule. It has no jurisdiction.
Your constant use of the wird "illegal" shows that YOU are the Tap-Room lawyer. OFT opinion doesn't mean it's LAW.

Thirdly, yes, the term is part of a larger term described as unfair by the OFT, but they wouldn't have used £35 + VAT is clearly intended to show that is unfair.

Hmm, well what does the OFT mean? A fixed charge is "illegal" or a variable one is ok?
It's not been tested by the court, but a reasonable fixed charge vs a variable charge? Hmm, which could create more money???

Once again, your attitude stinks. This site is called "moneysavingexpert".

Again, you've laid into my "attitude", perhaps it's yours that stinks? It's "moneysaving" not rip-off and exceed your rights. Have you had a probelm in this area?


In case you hadn't noticed:

"MoneySaving is about cutting bills not cutting back. It's about being a sassy consumer. Companies try to screw us for profits. MoneySaving shows you how to screw them back."

How do you fall into that charging people £40 to send a letter? If you want to do such things, I suggest you do so on "greedylandlords.com", as this "MoneySavingExpert.com".

I didn't. read what I put, don't just attack me for the sake of your own prejudice.

And by the way, if you were my landlord I will not hesitate to sue you.

And you would lose.

sm9ai

RobKingston wrote:

To those who've asked, the standing order was set up by the agents (as the new one will be). However I have full control over it via online banking and if anything is out of order I'll be able to correct it straight away.

I wouldn't worry then. This is clearly the agencies fault. I would write to them to advise them that they set up the standing order. (And charge them £35 for sending them the letter :rotfl:)

whambamboo

real1314 wrote:

And you would lose.

Sorry mate, never lost so far. Landlords tend not to like CCJs against them, and it's *much* easier to sue (takes 5 minutes online) than waste your time with people like you.

Regardless, this is getting pretty tedious: you insist that you're right and the OFT is wrong. Either way, I think you'd feel more at home on DodgyLandlords.com.

sue_46

hi guys I think Conrqad is spot on, Im a victim of late payment, I am a landlady I am also a single parent of 4 fatherless children and 2 grandkids also come from SP families and I could not buy any presents for christmas or xmas food becouse the Standing order that she sent on the 18th Dec didnt arrive! what rights have I got?? landlords get bad press, they are not all bad. some tenants are so abusive its awful. I did t get paid last Friday so i had no £ at xmas and STILL WAITING.

S

jamesd

It happens. Hopefully you'll have a reserve built up to cover it by this time next year.

Madjock

the agent couldnt have set up the standing order. you have to set up a standing order yourself.
instead of screaming at each other about what's legal and what's not, why not wake up and smell the roses?
It's Christmas, season of good will, etc.