Unfair Tenancy Terms ?

ValHaller

SternMusik wrote: »

I believe the OFT take the view that the tenant can choose their own supplier (as long as they have AST) without needing permission of the landlord.

As do OFGEM, so I believe.

Fire_Fox

Stujclark wrote: »

1) LL can make deductions from deposit for unpaid utility bills. As far as I'm concerned bills between me and a utility company are my business.

Theres no guarantee you will take the bills with you when you vacate, landlord doesn't want bailiffs etc turning up at a property because you didn't pay the bill and have done a runner. Bad credit at an address can affect other people's chances of getting credit at that address. Just Pay your bills, as your obliged to, not sure what the problem is here.

Sorry but this is an urban myth. Debts are attached to the person not the property, providing the landlord or new tenant supplies their name and meter readings, a forwarding address if known the old account will be closed and the supplier will be aware the tenant has left. There is no reason for debt collectors to rock up anywhere they will be hunting for the defaulter elsewhere.

Stujclark wrote: »

5) utilities again, I must inform LL of any change of supplier, fair enough. however I must ensure that the supply is returned to the original supplier. seems a bit pointless and a lot of hassle for me.

Just a standard clause, landlord usually gives permission anyway, but the landlord can insist on this as has been pointed out by another post, it could cost him

To be honest, your concerns seem to be a bit pedantic to me, I always say to a tenant, imagine if it was your home you were letting, put yourself in the landlords shoes, not all landlords are millionaires you know.

Read the OFT guidance on unfair and unenforceable clauses, landlord cannot dictate who the supplier is at any point in the tenancy including the end. Just because it is a standard clause in contracts written by scam merchants like Foxtons doesn't mean it trumps the tenants rights.

OP's concerns are very responsible, too many people sign legally binding contracts without reading them, then get into a whole heap of trouble whilst they wrangle over unfair and unenforceable clauses. Sadly many landlords and letting agents have no qualifications or training and have limited knowledge of or regard for tenants rights.

If you are a landlord then I'd suggest you join a landlord's association and get yourself up to speed with the legislation, you are years out of date.

tim123456789

thesaint wrote: »

On start of tenancy, the utilities are supplied by British Gas whom charge no standing charge.
On departure of the tenancy, the tenant has moved the utilities to EON whom charge £1.50 per week standing charge.

The landlord takes a month to re-let the property, and is presented with a bill of £6.50 that he wouldn't have had to pay but for the actions of the tenant.

good try

but once the new regs come in zero SC accounts will be history

tim

thesaint

tim123456789 wrote: »

good try

but once the new regs come in zero SC accounts will be history

tim

Glad to see that you agree the landlord could show a judge a loss.
I doubt any landlord has gone to court based under regulations that don't exist yet.

tim123456789

thesaint wrote: »

Glad to see that you agree the landlord could show a judge a loss.
I doubt any landlord has gone to court based under regulations that don't exist yet.

and I doubt that any have gone to court over such a trivila item as this

tim

thesaint

tim123456789 wrote: »

and I doubt that any have gone to court over such a trivila item as this

tim

That's the point, the landlord wouldn't have to. The tenant would.
The amounts are trivial for my example, it was only to prove that the landlord can sustain a loss due to breach of the contracted terms.

The amounts could be more depending on the individual circumstances.

tim123456789

thesaint wrote: »

That's the point, the landlord wouldn't have to. The tenant would.
.

Rubbish

The tenant breaches the clause.

LL then has to go to court to enforce it.

Personally, I think that this contrivance to deny T his lawful right to select his own utility supplier is preposterous.

The amount that a LL can possibly lose is tiny and the effort that you think it is reasonable to go to to enforce a clause that, rightfully, shouldn't be there in the first place, is ridiculous

tim

Fire_Fox

tim123456789 wrote: »

good try

but once the new regs come in zero SC accounts will be history

tim

Ebico say they have no intention of bringing in service charges, or at least they will be zero pence.

tim123456789

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Ebico say they have no intention of bringing in service charges, or at least they will be zero pence.

If the rules are enacted as most recently proposed, they will have no choice in the matter.

And I know that the companies aren't happy with the rules and are dragging the process out as long as possible in the hope of getting them changed. But this particular point isn't a major issue for them.

(FWIW, Their main point of contention is that the new rules wont allow them to "rip off" customers by obsoluting charge rates, and they like doing that and want to continue "being able to do that. They are, of course presenting this "rip off" as a benefit to consumers, when it is nothing of the sort)

tim