Letting agent requiring use of overpriced services?

antrobus

debsue wrote: »

Is the cow in the contract?

Apparently.

Given the size of the typical back garden, I imagine that such a requirement would undoubtedly be 'unfair' and 'uneforceable'.:D

Owain_Moneysaver

CreepyJim wrote: »

We are also having to look after the letting agent's cow, which lives in the back garden. We are required to ensure it is fed and looked after at all times, even though it is not our cow.

Is it a negotiable cow?

fluffnutter

arcon5 wrote: »

To be honest, if these services and costs are listed in the contract I can't see how it can be deemed "unfair" or unenforceable.

As a general point about contract law this isn't strictly true, arcon. You can't just write something down, get someone else to sign it then go taa-dah! that's the contract.

A contract can be unfair for a number of reasons, despite it being agreed to. For example, if you sign under duress, and, crucially, if it delivers a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations.

A useful example is the OFT's recent ruling on gym contracts that are for very long periods, e.g. 24 or 36 months. These have been deemed unfair and consumers are urged to fight back if they find themselves unable to extricate themselves.

That's why courts so often are called to adjudicate in circumstances like this. Personally I can't imagine any judge with half a brain ruling it's OK to charge someone £200 to watch their own telly when the licence fee is a good 50 quid cheaper than that. It simply wouldn't stand up in court and would be deemed both unfair and unenforceable.

You might find the following link useful, OP.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311.pdf

Enfieldian

Is there also a ghost that haunts the place that you have to pay a monthly fee for?

An "air supply" tax as well possibly?

wimblewomble_2

CreepyJim wrote: »

We are also having to look after the letting agent's cow, which lives in the back garden. We are required to ensure it is fed and looked after at all times, even though it is not our cow.

If I were you, I'd go swap the cow for a handful of magic beans.
So much easier to look after.

arcon5

antrobus wrote: »

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 apply to contracts relating to land. The OFT have even published a document entitled 'Guidance on Unfair Terms in Tenancy Agreements' see http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf

They state that "If you think that any of the standard terms in a consumer contract are unfair you can contact the OFT at the address below or your local trading standards service."

I know what 'unfair' means and its implications.

But merely a deal involving the property and utilities in one contract isn't necessarily unfair! In fact it's quite common.

But that's not what were dealing with here.

arcon5

fluffnutter wrote: »

As a general point about contract law this isn't strictly true, arcon. You can't just write something down, get someone else to sign it then go taa-dah! that's the contract.

A contract can be unfair for a number of reasons, despite it being agreed to. For example, if you sign under duress, and, crucially, if it delivers a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations.

I'm aware of that. We're talking about a contract that forms a package deal with rent and utilities under one agreement. So unless you know how this agreement came about, it can hardly be deemed unfair by default. Many HMOs are formed around this kind of deal!!!

A useful example is the OFT's recent ruling on gym contracts that are for very long periods, e.g. 24 or 36 months. These have been deemed unfair and consumers are urged to fight back if they find themselves unable to extricate themselves.

Apples and oranges

That's why courts so often are called to adjudicate in circumstances like this. Personally I can't imagine any judge with half a brain ruling it's OK to charge someone £200 to watch their own telly when the licence fee is a good 50 quid cheaper than that. It simply wouldn't stand up in court and would be deemed both unfair and unenforceable.

I agree a term imposed demanding £200 for a TV license (on top of say £500 rent for example) may be unfair. However, a package stating £700 includes TV license is unlikely to be unfair - it merely forms part of the deal which the consumer can accept or reject.

CreepyJim

Is the cow in the contract?

No, the cow was not mentioned at any stage. We only found out it was there when mooving in.

antrobus

arcon5 wrote: »

I know what 'unfair' means and its implications.

Apparently not.

arcon5 wrote: »

But merely a deal involving the property and utilities in one contract isn't necessarily unfair! In fact it's quite common.

It isn't necesssarily fair either. As has already been pointed out to you, your statement that "if these services and costs are listed in the contract I can't see how it can be deemed "unfair" or unenforceable"" is not an accurate reflection of the law.

arcon5 wrote: »

But that's not what were dealing with here.

That's right. You haven't mentioned the cow at all.

wealdroam

I would tell the cow down at the letting agent's office to moove on.