Unreasonable clause?

Lady_maverick1979

I'm not sure if this is the right board for this query, but I hope someone can help me.

This situation is this - my husband is a doctor and, until September 06, we were living in Livingston (Central Belt). In June, he had interviewed and secured his registrar post, due to start in Septmber. This post is with Grampian Trust, based in Aberdeen, but as part of his first 2 years, he has to complete a compulsory 6 month placement in Inverness. He was assigned to do this placement as his first 6 months in contract, so our plan was to sell our flat in Livingston, stay in hospital accommodation in Inverness for the 6 month placement and then buy something near Aberdeen in time for starting there in March 07.

We were under the impression that we would not be liable for rent on the hospital accommodation in Inverness, as hubby was there on compulsory placement. However, Highland Trust (which cover Inverness) are arguing that we ARE due for the rent as we have no mortgage or rent commitment on a property elsewhere.

Now, I seem to remember reading on another board here that any clause in a contract could not be enforced if it was unreasonable; thus, I would argue that it is unreasonable for Highland Trust to expect us to have kept our flat in Livingston, 200 miles away, when we are never going to be back there.

Can anyone tell me whether I would be correct in interpreting this as unreasonable and whether we have grounds for arguing against their decision?

(We've been putting the money aside every month, in case we do have to pay it, but it comes to a total of £2,500 and having a new-build house to move to, we'd much rather put it towards carpets and the like, if we can )

Thanks in advance,

L_M.xx

Debt_Free_Chick

Lady_maverick1979 wrote:

Now, I seem to remember reading on another board here that any clause in a contract could not be enforced if it was unreasonable; thus, I would argue that it is unreasonable for Highland Trust to expect us to have kept our flat in Livingston, 200 miles away, when we are never going to be back there.

FWIW, my interpretation is this ...

"it is unreasonable for Highland Trust to expect us to have kept our flat in Livingston, 200 miles away, when we are never going to be back there. So they have provided us with accommodation for which we are being ask to pay the rent".

To be honest, you were going to have to pay to rent somewhere to live, surely? I think that the clause which states

"... we have no mortgage or rent commitment on a property elsewhere"

stands as it is. You have no mortgage or rent elsewhere, so it's not unreasonable for you to pay for the accommodation that Highland Trust are providing.

They are not insisting that you should have kept on your Livingston place - they are just saying that you need to rent "somewhere". Either rent "elsewhere" or rent from us.

I wonder what others think?

Bossyboots

I agree with you DFC. That was exactly my thinking too.

Lady_maverick1979

Thanks DFC...

Suddenly, the way you've put it, it does make sense and doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't know why I didn't think about it like this before.

I think we got stuck in a loop of 'can't expect us to keep a flat in Livingston if we're not going back, but can't expect us to buy in Aberdeen yet, as we're not going there for 6 months', but suddenly your wording has made me realise it is about renting from somewhere, which we have to do, whether it's from the Trust or a private landlord, and the whole clause is about not putting staff in the position of having to pay 2 lots of accommodation costs.

Thanks very much for opening my eyes!!!

L_M.xx

Debt_Free_Chick

Lady_maverick1979 wrote:

Thanks very much for opening my eyes!!!

L_M.xx

You're so very welcome.

Sometimes these things don't seem clear when "you're in the middle of it". I guess that's one of the things these Boards tries to achieve - to give you a different perspective.

Glad to have helped :beer: