BTL blacklist

Shakethedisease

If it is reasonable, and the point we discussed was, then it is legally binding upon being signed.

No, it's not. Statue law will always take precedence. I could sign any agreement you like saying I wouldn't smoke in the property, nor keep a pet, and allow inspections every month..

But try taking me to court if don't comply with any of the above ?

There's a big difference between the natural end of a tenancy ( ie being given notice because the place stinks of fag smoke, or not allowing inspections etc )... and what actually IS 'legally binding'. I'm not sure how far any landlord would get actually, trying to evict 'legally' a tenant who keeps a pet for example, which they agreed not to in the contract ? It's not against the law to keep a pet, or smoke in the UK at the present time.

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, it's not. Statue law will always take precedence. I could sign any agreement you like saying I wouldn't smoke in the property, nor keep a pet, and allow inspections every month..

But try taking me to court if don't comply with any of the above ?

There's a big difference between the natural end of a tenancy ( ie being given notice because the place stinks of fag smoke, or not allowing inspections etc )... and what actually IS 'legally binding'. I'm not sure how far any landlord would get actually, trying to evict 'legally' a tenant who keeps a pet for example, which they agreed not to in the contract ? It's not against the law to keep a pet, or smoke in the UK at the present time.

If a term of the contract breached a law in statute then it isn't going to be reasonable anyway is it?

In terms of it being legally binding. If the terms of a contract are breached then the innocent party is no longer obliged to honour their part of the agreement and can also sue for damages. In the case of tenancy agreements deposits provide a means of expediting any claim for damages and so the matter only needs to be referred to a court if the tenant feels that th amount withheld is unreasonable.

Shakethedisease

Viewings in the last 4 weeks ? 3 Monthly inspections ? It's in the contract, is not legally binding, and you certainly won't get any 'damages' for it.

No smoking in the property ? It's in the contract, is not legally binding, and you won't get any damages for it as long as the property is returned in good condition.

No kids, see above re good condition.

No pets, see above re good condition.

These are very common clause's in tenancy agreements. None of which are worth your time, money nor effort taking to court. Which begs the questions as to why they are actually there in first place really...

But it doesn't stop some landlords assumming the upper hand 'legally' just because these clauses are in there. The law doesn't work that way, it's a shame some landlords actually think it does.

I'm taking from your last response that when you say..

If a term of the contract breached a law in statute then it isn't going to be reasonable anyway is it?

That you of course have none of the above 'unreasonable' clauses in your own terms of tenancy...since you cannot enforce any of them legally under UK law as it stands. What would be the point of having them eh ?

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Viewings in the last 4 weeks ? 3 Monthly inspections ? It's in the contract, is not legally binding, and you certainly won't get any 'damages' for it.

No smoking in the property ? It's in the contract, is not legally binding, and you won't get any damages for it as long as the property is returned in good condition.

No kids, see above re good condition.

No pets, see above re good condition.

These are very common clause's in tenancy agreements. None of which are worth your time, money nor effort taking to court. Which begs the questions as to why they are actually there in first place really...

But it doesn't stop some landlords assumming the upper hand 'legally' just because these clauses are in there. The law doesn't work that way, it's a shame some landlords actually think it does.

I'm taking from your last response that when you say..



That you of course have none of the above 'unreasonable' clauses in your own terms of tenancy...since you cannot enforce any of them legally under UK law as it stands. What would be the point of having them eh ?

A contract is a voluntary agreement between two parties. If you do not honour your side of the bargain then, under contract law, the other party is no longer obliged to honour theirs. If there is damage caused by these breaches then the other party can claim damages.

I don't see no pets, for example, as unreasonable. Pets can often smell and cause damage. If the landlord isn't prepared to have pets then go to one that is.

Given that these terms are known upfront, usually included in the advert, you're hardly a victim if this causes an issue with your tenancy at a later date.

I take it from your comments that you're in the habit of signing contracts with no intention of honouring your side of the agreement? Why not find someone who accepts kids, pets, etc rather than being disingenuous?

Shakethedisease

Given that these terms are known upfront, usually included in the advert, you're hardly a victim if this causes an issue with your tenancy at a later date.

I take it from your comments that you're in the habit of signing contracts with no intention of honouring your side of the agreement? Why not find someone who accepts kids, pets, etc rather than being disingenuous?

The only thing on any contract that's in UK tenancy law, is that I have to leave the property as I found it, less wear and tear.

The rest, is none of your business ? And whats the problem with that ? The fact you try and lessen your risk via 'an advert' and 'terms' in a contract.. do not make them lawful OR enforcable.

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The only thing on any contract that's in UK tenancy law, is that I have to leave the property as I found it, less wear and tear.

The rest, is none of your business ? And whats the problem with that ? The fact you try and lessen your risk via 'an advert' and 'terms' in a contract.. do not make them lawful OR enforcable.

We are not going to agree on this one. If you sign a contract and are aware of the terms you should honour it.

To sign up to a contract knowing full well you are going to ignore its terms is dishonest.

If you do not adhere to the terms of the contract which you signed voluntarily I do not see why a landlord should continue with the contract. If you cause damage you should pay.

Some of the breaches you seem ready to make could invalidate the landlord's insurance. If an insurance policy stipulated no smoking for example, which some do, and there was a fire as a result of you smoking then the landlord could have lost his property and not be able to make an insurance claim because you are not decent enough to tell the truth when signing a contract.

It is because of people like you that landlords need more protection in law.