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

aliasojo

Fluffs123 wrote: »

LL responsible for fixing white goods!

Within a specified timeframe.

Our washing machine conked on first use. Despite promises of action, 4 weeks later we are still waiting.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But without such a clause, what can happen is detrimental to the interests of the guarantor.?

I don't know because I doubt such clause would be valid.

In any case such considerations should be between the tenant and his guarantor, and are irrelevant to the landlord.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

I don't know because I doubt such clause would be valid.

In any case such considerations should be between the tenant and his guarantor, and are irrelevant to the landlord.

Negligence on the part of the landlord can be very detrimental to the guarantor. Once there is a guarantor, there are 3 parties in the bed.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Negligence on the part of the landlord can be very detrimental to the guarantor. Once there is a guarantor, there are 3 parties in the bed.

What negligence? Rent is a debt, it is due.
The landlord may ask a guarantor to protect itself. If the guarantor wants special protection he should negotiate special conditions in the deed of guarantee or through another agreement with the tenant.

My question remains, and until a legal expert comments, I would think that giving the guarantor the right to serve a NTQ in the tenancy agreement has no value.

Mind_the_Gap

jjlandlord wrote: »

What negligence? Rent is a debt, it is due.
The landlord may ask a guarantor to protect itself. If the guarantor wants special protection the landlord he should negotiate special conditions in the deed of guarantee or through another agreement with the tenant.

My question remains, and until a legal expert comments, I would think that giving the guarantor the right to serve a NTQ in the tenancy agreement has no value.

I agree; the whole point of having a guarantor is to help protect the LL's interests with economically less 'rock-solid' tenants. The G can reasonably specify that he/she will stand as G only for the duration of the fixed term, so that gives him/her some protection from covering T's debts indefinitely.

In practice too, I can't see it being very useful to allow G to give notice on T's behalf (even if it were legally possible). LL is presumably going to want a seriously defaulting T out anyway...and if T is unwilling LL will need to go through the whole court order/bailiffs process in any case.

prudryden

franklee wrote: »

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?

I really don't know - ask the tenants. They have a choice - 12mo contract or 12mo contract with 6 month break clause for both tenant and LL and with two months notice for each. They seem to like the break clause option.. There are no other options to consider. As mentioned earlier, so far, it has been to the tenants benefit, not mine. Haven't had an unhappy tenant yet in 20 yrs. What makes you think the break clause is badly written? I can think of 3 past couples who have exercised their option because of splitting up.

RAS

Given how often we encounter people here and on the debt forum who are in a mess because a fellow tenant has not paid their rent, I think that a careful plain English explanation of joint and several liability would be a good idea and a clause allowing the LL to inform the other tenants if one of them is more than say 14 days late paying their rent.

Rachel_123

From personal experience I would like:
Maintenance problems have to be fixed in a specified reasonable amount of time I.e not 3 months to fix a freezer.
Discount for paying 6 months rent up front
If landlord goes AWOL the letting agent should be able approve things on their behalf (landlord didn't communicate what he approved doing to the freezer hence 3 month delay)

franklee

prudryden wrote: »

I really don't know - ask the tenants. They have a choice - 12mo contract or 12mo contract with 6 month break clause for both tenant and LL and with two months notice for each. They seem to like the break clause option.. There are no other options to consider. As mentioned earlier, so far, it has been to the tenants benefit, not mine. Haven't had an unhappy tenant yet in 20 yrs. What makes you think the break clause is badly written? I can think of 3 past couples who have exercised their option because of splitting up.

Ah so you don't offer a six months fixed term and then periodic, why is that?

Questions on break clauses often come up on here and people post the wording, often they are badly written so as to make them ambiguous. Some of the questions raised are does it mean give notice at four months to leave at six, or give notice at six to leave at eight, is it a one shot or can notice be given anytime, does it have to match a period etc. Obviously they all vary but often they aren't that clear. It seems an overly complicated way of doing things to me, mainly aimed at making a tenant give more than the standard one months notice that a periodic tenancy allows.

I would not sign up to having to give two months notice as it would likely make securing the next property harder as it would be difficult competing against other tenants who are giving the one month and so could move in sooner. I doubt a new landlord would hold the next property empty waiting for move in day and I would not want to give notice before securing somewhere to move to.

mynameisclare

franklee wrote: »

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?

I have a 12 month contract with a break clause for me (tenant) only. It means I can't be kicked out until the 12 months, but I could leave earlier if I needed to. I don't know why the landlord offers such a contract since I don't see any benefit for him, but it gives me a lot of peace of mind.