What clauses might tenants like to see in their Tenancy Agreement ?

franklee

My LL's agent uses the RICS tenancy agreement. It's written in plain English and seems fairer than most to me in that it isn't laced with unfair terms and doesn't push things that should be the LL's responsibility on to the tenant. Really I'd say if you follow the recommendations in OFT356. Also if you provide white goods (washing machine etc.) then I think it fairest to state if the LL is going to repair them or not so the T is left knowing what they are getting before they sign up. Break clauses are often a pain, I suggest it's better to have the fixed term a sensible length and then offer a periodic tenancy or a renewal, I don't see break clauses do much other than confuse.

prudryden

franklee wrote: »

My LL's agent uses the RICS tenancy agreement. It's written in plain English and seems fairer than most to me in that it isn't laced with unfair terms and doesn't push things that should be the LL's responsibility on to the tenant. Really I'd say if you follow the recommendations in OFT356. Also if you provide white goods (washing machine etc.) then I think it fairest to state if the LL is going to repair them or not so the T is left knowing what they are getting before they sign up. Break clauses are often a pain, I suggest it's better to have the fixed term a sensible length and then offer a periodic tenancy or a renewal, I don't see break clauses do much other than confuse.

Usually, my tenants are the ones who like the break clauses. I give it to them on the condition that I get two months notice as they do. Everyone so far thought that was fair. I have had several use the break clause - each of them for the same reason unfortunately - the couples have split. It seems to work well for the tenants and I have never had to exercise the option for my behalf.

Fluffs123

LL responsible for fixing white goods! Luckily only the washing machine has stopped working, but imagine if it were the fridge?

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Guarantor authorised to give notice on behalf of the tenant where there are arrears and authorised to undertake eviction proceedings in the name of the Landlord.

Is there any legal basis for this to have any validity?

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Is there any legal basis for this to have any validity?

Contract. Hence put it in the contract.

jonny_power

2 week notice period for tenant if on a periodic contract. Also agree about contradictory clauses such as 'can only leave on a rent day'.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Contract. Hence put it in the contract.

That fact that it is in the contract does not mean that it has any affect. There are many cases discussed on these forums where landlords tried to rely on completely unenforceable clauses.

Here I am especially curious to know if a notice to quit served by the guarantor can have any actual effect as, well, he is not the tenant. In addition that's clearly detrimental to the tenant.

olly300

jonny_power wrote: »

2 week notice period for tenant if on a periodic contract. Also agree about contradictory clauses such as 'can only leave on a rent day'.

There is a legal basis for notice period of a month and rent day.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the landlord using their discretion to agree to something different.

franklee

prudryden wrote: »

Usually, my tenants are the ones who like the break clauses. I give it to them on the condition that I get two months notice as they do. Everyone so far thought that was fair. I have had several use the break clause - each of them for the same reason unfortunately - the couples have split. It seems to work well for the tenants and I have never had to exercise the option for my behalf.

What's the difference between say a six month fixed term followed by a periodic tenancy or a one year fixed term with a six month break clause? It seems to me the main thing is to increase the notice a tenant need give. Don't see that's of particular benefit to the tenant, it is of benefit to the landlord as they're given more notice. Plus they're often badly written. Even if you want to do everything in six month chunks you could go for a renewal. What exactly is it a break clause gives that the above options don't?

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

That fact that it is in the contract does not mean that it has any affect. There are many cases discussed on these forums where landlords tried to rely on completely unenforceable clauses.

Here I am especially curious to know if a notice to quit served by the guarantor can have any actual effect as, well, he is not the tenant. In addition that's clearly detrimental to the tenant.

But without such a clause, what can happen is detrimental to the interests of the guarantor. Effectively, what I am proposing is a power of attorney under limited circumstances. While it may be to the detriment of the tenant to evict them, it can only occur when the tenant is acting to the detriment of Landlord and Guarantor.

In terms of public policy, I would say that something which limits the liability arising from a guarantee would be beneficial - how many times do we advise people not to become guarantors under any circumstance?