Are these restrictive terms?

jangor_2

My son and partner have recently found a flat they wish to rent and have paid £240 for the necessary financial checks. The EA's part is finding tenants with the LL managing the property. Following payment of the sum stated the LLs asked to meet both my son and his partner. Unfortunately my son was unable to meet with the LL due to work commitments. However his partner met the young LLs. She was taken to task over every aspect of their lives and then advised, amongst other things, they would need to remove their shoes before entering the property at any time, they were not permitted to hold any parties and the LLs would frequently be calling round to check the condition of the flat. They then expressed concern about my son's work (he is a fully qualified mechanic) advising they thought he would leave greasy and oily marks everywhere. The LLs are therefore considering whether to proceed with renting to my son. My son and partner are obviously now aksi uncertain they wish to proceed with the rental but have been advised the money they have given the EA is non refundable. I am unsure what to advise them.

CloudCuckooLand

They should have read what they signed in relation to the "financial check" fee. What does it say?

Even if it means losing the money, I'd find somewhere else. You just know the LL & LA are going to be intrusive and annoying.

Legally, they could fight for quiet enjoyment and argue over restrictive terms, but if you know its going to be like it up front, why take on the hassle..?

If they find another property with the same EA, they should argue for the checks to still be valid. But they need to be honest and say they don't want to view any properties from such unreasonable landlords - so the LA get the message it could have been easy money for everyone, but for the attitude...

jangor_2

Thankyou for your response and advice which to me makes sound sense. My son tells me he hasn't signed or seen any documents relating to the property as yet. The EA asked him for a cheque relating to the checks and gave him a receipt.

Yorkie1

Why have you posted this post twice?

jangor_2

Apologies, posted twice by accident. My computer crashed and I thought my first post had been deleted. Thankyou for the responses.

anselld

PROPERTY_OWNING_CLASS wrote: »

In essence the property belongs to the landlord not your son so they can apply any restrictions they so desire.

Not true.

They can use whatever criteria they like to select tenants (with the exception of anything classed as discrimination), but such restrictions are completely unenforceable once the tenancy is signed.