Buy to Let - expenses claimable from tenant

BongoTheWhippet

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Seen them before, never had to pay them, not interested in paying for them in the future.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Providing documentary evidence should not be hard to do.

And who is going to oblige the OP to do that? The OP will do it out of his own true and kind heart (he has not obliged himself to produce documentary evidence so far in this new and innovative contract he's proposing)?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

You're confusing assertiveness with aggression. The distinction is an important one.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

Something against landlords, perhaps....

The OP doesn't like the outcomes of case law, as earlier posters have pointed out. He wants to rewrite case law to accommodate his new and innovative scheme which would be illegal. I've suggested a way he could actually do that which admittedly is not without its snags

Thank goodness. I have a problem with landlords that don't abide by the law. The issue here is, you don't.:think:

bris

Here you go, from a government website. Please never mix up commercial tenancies with consumer ones.

What is the landlord responsible for?

Repairs and maintenance

Unless the tenancy has a fixed term of more than 7 years, the landlord is responsible under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for repairs to

• The structure, fabric and exterior of the property
• Baths, sinks, basins and other sanitary installations
• Heating and hot water installations
• If the property is a flat or maisonette, other parts of the building or installations in it which are controlled or owned by the landlord and whose disrepair would affect the tenant.

The Landlord is not responsible for damage caused by the tenant.

The rent charged can include a sum to cover the cost of repairs but the Landlord cannot pass the costs on to the tenant in the form of a separate service charge.

In addition to the general repair requirement, the Landlord now also has a duty to ensure the property does not pose a risk to the health and safety of the tenants or visitors to the property. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’, a new way of assessing properties to make homes safer.

jjlandlord

bris wrote: »

The rent charged can include a sum to cover the cost of repairs but the Landlord cannot pass the costs on to the tenant in the form of a separate service charge.

The key is to understand what this means.
It means that the landlord cannot charge the tenant separately for any of his statutory obligations.

So yes, any maintenance charge related to repairs cannot be passed on to tenant.

On the other hand, charges related to cleaning, gardening, utilities, etc., which are not a statutory obligation of the landlord can be negotiated to be paid by the tenant, even as a separate charge.

At the end of the day, as said, it may be easier to factor everything into the rent, or to make charges very clear, e.g. "gardening charge" to avoid any argument.

real1314

OFT Potentially Unfair Contract terms:-

"Increase of charges other than rent
3.104 A price variation clause is not necessarily fair just because it is linked to external circumstances. We may object to a right to increase prices to cover increased costs experienced by the landlord during a standard fixed term tenancy, except where such an increase directly reflects an increase in utility charges or council tax where those charges are included in the rent.
Landlords are much better able to anticipate and control most changes in their costs than their tenants. In any event, such terms are open to abuse in practice, because tenants will be unable to determine whether the increases imposed on them are reasonable and match actual cost increases."

:cool:

jjlandlord

So basically the OFT considers charges variation OK, if increase if reasonable and match actual cost increase...

BongoTheWhippet

jjlandlord wrote: »

So basically the OFT considers charges variation OK, if increase if reasonable and match actual cost increase...

No. Read it again.

"A price variation clause is not necessarily fair just because it is linked to external circumstances. We may object to a right to increase prices to cover increased costs experienced by the landlord during a standard fixed term tenancy, except where such an increase directly reflects an increase in utility charges or council tax where those charges are included in the rent."

That means that only utility (electricity, gas, water) or council tax. Other charges are illegal.



I notice HAMISH MCTAVISH has gone after getting bored of trolling.

Dal_Whinnie

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.

Actually, if you read what I have written, I never suggested that any service charge I passed on to the tenant would purely be at my whim, it would have to be clearly set out in the lease and supported by appropriate evidence.

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

And who is going to oblige the OP to do that? The OP will do it out of his own true and kind heart (he has not obliged himself to produce documentary evidence so far in this new and innovative contract he's proposing)?

Maybe I did not spell that out but I would absolutely expect to produce documentary evidence and I would expect that to be required as part of the terms of the lease.

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

The OP doesn't like the outcomes of case law, as earlier posters have pointed out. He wants to rewrite case law to accommodate his new and innovative scheme which would be illegal.

I have no particular wish to rewrite case law in this arena I am quite happy to do that in my own area of expertise!. Certain costs, as has been pointed out, including repairs and maintenance, cannot be directly charged on and again (if you read my posts) I was not considering these type of costs. I was only looking at day to day costs such as utilities, garden maintenance, etc from which the tenant benefits and can control and was not looking to profiteer, just considering a slightly different way of fairly sharing costs.

I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, it has clearly generated some emotion and also some technical and practical advice. I introduced the question of commercial lettings to compare structures but fully recognise the much greater protection an individual is entitled to and the fact that most residential lettings are under assured shorthold tenancies and as a consequence commercial letting is not a useful guide in respect of residential lettings.

On balance it would appear that there is no legal reason why certain costs cannot be passed on directly to my tenant but that the difficulties in agreeing a lease in this format means it is probably prudent not to do so.

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.

Except of course, the OFT says the opposite.

We may object to a right to increase prices to cover increased costs experienced by the landlord during a standard fixed term tenancy, except where such an increase directly reflects an increase in utility charges or council tax where those charges are included in the rent."

:rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

That means that only utility (electricity, gas, water) or council tax. Other charges are illegal.

Oh right.

So the specific example I gave in my earlier post then.:)

I notice HAMISH MCTAVISH has gone after getting bored of trolling.

You are quite the aggressive little thing tonight.

Actually, I sense a vague familiarity to this kind of frothing anti-landlord rhetoric.

It's the sort of thing you'd normally only expect to find on one of the extremist fringe websites.

What are the odds it's been linked to and you're just over here trolling, I wonder...

nrsql

>> 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.

Problem is that all tenants would be charged for the actions of one of them. I think you would have similar issues with any communal areas. What if someone from another flat breaks a window - would it be fair to charge your tennant for part of the repairs? If you were managing the building yourself it might be in your interest to inflate costs knowing that the tenant would have to pay or perhaps delay maintenance or bills until after void periods.