Letting agent terms

Innys

Hi

As a landlord, I have a question which I was hoping someone may be able to help me with.

Just under a year ago I let my property on a let only basis through Townends at 7%.

The tenants have proved very good and I have decided I would like to keep them for at least another year. However, I would like to switch to a Statutory Periodic Tenancy and not have to pay the agent 7% for doing nothing.

Unfortunately, I have found out that their terms and conditions mean a renewal fee is still payable for at least another 2 years, even if I switch to a SPT. Yes, yes, I know - I should have taken more care to read the Ts and Cs but I thought the tenants would not choose to stay beyond a year.

So, my question is - are the Ts and Cs enforceable? Has anyone successfully challenged such Ts and Cs previously because it seems quite unfair to me that a further fee is payable for the agent doing nothing.

Thanks

I

BitterAndTwisted

Of course their terms and conditions are enforceable, you signed a contract agreeing to them.

princeofpounds

Contracts between LLs and LAs are classed as B2B contracts. They aren't protected by consumer legislation againsts unfair terms.

theartfullodger

princeofpounds wrote: »

Contracts between LLs and LAs are classed as B2B contracts. They aren't protected by consumer legislation againsts unfair terms.

Surely the whole point of the Foxton;s case was that if a landlord was "small-time" (like me, only 4 houses..) he could argue he was consumer & not business: Foxton's got done by OFT under unfair terms stuff didn't they???? See..
http://landlordlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/oft-victory-in-foxtons-unfair-contract.html
(Tessa...)

Innys - how many properties do you rent out?? (or tell us the total rent-roll-pa... )

btw 7% for let-only seems a bit high......

Cheers!!

G_M

Yes, I believe the Foxton's ruling would apply in this instance.

If so, you could ignore their invoice and if they sued you for 'their' commission/fee they would lose.

However for other LL's to note: when instructing a letting agent, always read the terms of the contract, and negotiate/delete terms you are unhappy with, or find another agent.

Coomon sense really. Bit like advising a tenant to read the tenancy agreement before signing!

Innys

theartfullodger wrote: »

Surely the whole point of the Foxton;s case was that if a landlord was "small-time" (like me, only 4 houses..) he could argue he was consumer & not business: Foxton's got done by OFT under unfair terms stuff didn't they???? See..
http://landlordlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/oft-victory-in-foxtons-unfair-contract.html
(Tessa...)

Innys - how many properties do you rent out?? (or tell us the total rent-roll-pa... )

btw 7% for let-only seems a bit high......

Cheers!!

I've found stuff on the Foxton's case here:

http://www.rla.org.uk/news/news.shtml?post=455

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-enforcement/consumer-enforcement-completed/foxtons/qandas#.UUdculeP-QI

It's far from clear cut, even for landlords with a small number of properties. I have two.

The renewal fee my agent is proposing to charge is 5% and is on the first page of the Ts and Cs, albeit in small print. Given that Foxton's were charging more than double that and it was hidden away in the Ts and Cs, I doubt I have much chance of success if I were to challenge it legally......

G_M

Innys wrote: »

The renewal fee my agent is proposing to charge is 5% and is on the first page of the Ts and Cs, albeit in small print. Given that Foxton's were charging more than double that and it was hidden away in the Ts and Cs, I doubt I have much chance of success if I were to challenge it legally......

If you doubt you have much chance of success, then pay the fee.

Personally I wouldn't.

Seems strange you came here asking how to avoid a fee you feel is unjust, are given a relevant legal precedent.... and capitulate!

theartfullodger

Agree with GM - I wouldn't pay & simply wait & see if they sue... sit tight, arms folded, see what they do...

Innys

G_M wrote: »

If you doubt you have much chance of success, then pay the fee.

Personally I wouldn't.

Seems strange you came here asking how to avoid a fee you feel is unjust, are given a relevant legal precedent.... and capitulate!

theartfullodger wrote: »

Agree with GM - I wouldn't pay & simply wait & see if they sue... sit tight, arms folded, see what they do...

I am in two minds. As I mentioned, the fee is relatively low, in relation to the Foxtons case at least.

Plus, if there were a legal precedent more along the lines of my scenario, I would be more inclined to do as you both suggest.

I am inclined to contact the agent and ask them why they feel the Foxtons legal precedent does not apply and then take it from there.

Opinions?

theartfullodger

Nah: Then they'll understand your position if it ever gets to court: Don;t give the enemy useful information

Just say No!!

G_M

Innys wrote: »

I am in two minds. As I mentioned, the fee is relatively low, in relation to the Foxtons case at least.what has the amount got to do with the rights n wrongs?

Plus, if there were a legal precedent more along the lines of my scenario, I would be more inclined to do as you both suggest.
as I said, either capitulate and pay, or don't.

I am inclined to contact the agent and ask them why they feel the Foxtons legal precedent does not apply and then take it from there.
Opinions?

Yes. Good idea. Ask them for legal advice and then when they give you their legal opinion that you own them the money, pay.