Buy to Let - expenses claimable from tenant

jjlandlord

Dal_Whinnie wrote: »

I would have thought that I could pass some of these costs to my tenant but my agent says that the Housing Act prohibits me from doing so (the flat is let under an assured shorthold tenancy). I have asked them for details of the relevant sections in the legislation but they have not been able to quote this for me.

I don't think there is any such limitation in the Housing Act 1988.

IMHO, nothing prevents you from charging this cost to the tenant, as long obviously as it is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement. I would assume that you would need to specify an amount, though.

It would seem simpler for everyone to factor in this cost in the rent.

Dal_Whinnie

jjlandlord wrote: »

I don't think there is any such limitation in the Housing Act 1988.

I couldn't see anything either but that was the response I got from my agent, that Housing Act prohibited doing so, but they haven't been able to support it further

jjlandlord wrote: »

It would seem simpler for everyone to factor in this cost in the rent.

I agree but wanted to explore legality of doing it differently and when somebody says 'you can't do that' but isn't able to support the statement, I start to get a bit like a 'dog with a bone'

jjlandlord

Don't assume that letting agents necessarily know what they are talking about

At the same time, DIY drafting a tenancy agreements is not really advisable and it's best to ask a solicitor to do it (preferably one knowledgeable in residential tenancy laws).

Dal_Whinnie

jjlandlord wrote: »

Don't assume that letting agents necessarily know what they are talking about

Which is why I asked my question in the first place, thank you.

Thrugelmir

Dal_Whinnie wrote: »

a sub tenant would almost certainly have the service charge passed on to them.

Would be a contractual arrangement in any event. In business people will be assumed to either take professional advice or be knowledgeable enough to understand what they are signing.

To impose such an undertaking on a consumer. Such as an open ended commitment to pay. Could be considered both unfair and unreasonable.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

To impose such an undertaking on a consumer. Such as an open ended commitment to pay. Could be considered both unfair and unreasonable.

But also may not be.

As a hypothetical example, in a situation where landlords are paying for a share of common utilities such as electrical consumption in hallways, and tenants continue to leave lights on, it would be no more unfair and unreasonable than any other open ended utilities contract that tenants commit to when they rent a place.

Of course you could also argue that sensor lights would solve the problem....

It's an interesting thread and the OP has raised a far more valid point than many on here have given him credit for.

BongoTheWhippet

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But also may not be.

As a hypothetical example, in a situation where landlords are paying for a share of common utilities such as electrical consumption in hallways, and tenants continue to leave lights on, it would be no more unfair and unreasonable than any other open ended utilities contract that tenants commit to when they rent a place.

Of course you could also argue that sensor lights would solve the problem....

It's an interesting thread and the OP has raised a far more valid point than many on here have given him credit for.

Hang on. In your example, the electricity company decides how much is paid. In the OP's example, he alone decides. That's why you'd never get it past the OFT as a fair and balanced contract.

Has the OP thought about renting out his garage to an East European family perhaps? Then he could charge whatever he liked whenever he liked and not live in fear of pesky UK laws as his tenants would be illegal overstayers!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

Hang on. In your example, the electricity company decides how much is paid. In the OP's example, he alone decides. That's why you'd never get it past the OFT as a fair and balanced contract.

Untrue.

You could easily enough specify that only common charges levied against the OP were to be reimbursed.

In which case it wouldn't be him "deciding" at all. Just passing on the properties share of a joint utility account, as billed by the electricity company.

BongoTheWhippet

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Untrue.

You could easily enough specify that only common charges levied against the OP were to be reimbursed.

In which case it wouldn't be him "deciding" at all. Just passing on the properties share of a joint utility account, as billed by the electricity company.

Aaand who polices that? Oh the OP. Ah. :rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

Aaand who polices that? Oh the OP. Ah. :rotfl:

Hmmm, a strange comment.

I take it you've never seen a copy of a bill from a management company then.

You may be surprised to know that such things exist.

Providing documentary evidence should not be hard to do.

Which begs the question as to why your response is so aggressive?

Not to mention this earlier nugget of misplaced rage....

Has the OP thought about renting out his garage to an East European family perhaps? Then he could charge whatever he liked whenever he liked and not live in fear of pesky UK laws as his tenants would be illegal overstayers!

Something against landlords, perhaps....