Additional charge on top of rent

kylararlin

Hi,

2 friends of ours were looking forward to moving into a their new flat tomorrow which is in the same complex as ours. Contracts have not been signed, though a £235 deposit along with the first months rent + bond (£1635 in total ) has been paid.

When they called the letting agency today to confirm the contract signing tomorrow they were informed that there is an additional monthly charge of £30 payable to the landlord for water rates. The monthly rent will be paid to the agency as it is a managed property.

As mentioned the property is in a complex, there is an annual service charge which covers the water rates as we do not have individual meters, our rental contract covers water and advises it is paid by the landlord but obviously we have not seen their contract yet as it is due to be signed tomorrow.

This additional £30 has priced the flat out of what they wanted to pay for a property and had it been added on the rent originally they would not have viewed the property. They are also uncomfortable paying this monthly fee directly to the landlord, while they realised they would be liable for utilities they assumed that the water would be included, or mentioned before they committed to the property.

They are understandably frustrated, is there any recourse in this situation? Is the situation of paying a separate fee to a 3rd party common as it seems a little dodgy?

Thanks

G_M

If an additional charge has been added over and above what was described/agreed, then the tenant should be entitled to decline the letting and get a refund.

In theory.

In practice, I foresee the LL/agent being troublesome over the refund. They may agree to partial refund, and it is up to the applicant to decide whether to accept whatever is offered, negotiate a higher level of refund, or demand a full refund (and be willing to go to court to get it....)

edit: I have to ask: why on earth was rent paid before a contract was signed....

Oh! yes, letting agent pressure....

kylararlin

G_M wrote: »

edit: I have to ask: why on earth was rent paid before a contract was signed....

Oh! yes, letting agent pressure....

1st month rent upfront is common in addition to the bond around here to secure the property

Thanks for the reply, that's pretty much what I fear will happen which could make it interesting trying to find a new flat with that money tied up :mad:

lighting_up_the_chalice

But it's not an additional charge. Just a direction regarding paying for something you would have to pay for anyway. So, financially, they should be no worse off.

It's unusual, but not unheard of, for water charges to be administered in this way.

kylararlin

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But it's not an additional charge. Just a direction regarding paying for something you would have to pay for anyway. So, financially, they should be no worse off.

It's unusual, but not unheard of, for water charges to be administered in this way.

Thanks for the reply but I'd have to disagree, their budget was decided upon with the assumption that the water would be included in the rent as it is with our tenancy agreement, or that there would have been an indication of the additional charge in either the advertisement or the breakdown they received with the paperwork they signed to hold the property.

From their point of view they are being asked to pay £30 to effectively a 3rd party (as their contract is with the agency for a managed property) who is not a utility provider.

gayleanne

Quite a few landlords do it this way to make sure the water rates are paid on time. £30.00 a month is actually very good for water rates our water rates were 69.50 per month until I had a water meter installed.

ognum

I am not sure why they didn't ask about the water rates when they viewed the property?

lighting_up_the_chalice

kylararlin wrote: »

Thanks for the reply but I'd have to disagree, their budget was decided upon with the assumption that the water would be included in the rent as it is with our tenancy agreement, or that there would have been an indication of the additional charge in either the advertisement or the breakdown they received with the paperwork they signed to hold the property.

From their point of view they are being asked to pay £30 to effectively a 3rd party (as their contract is with the agency for a managed property) who is not a utility provider.

If the agreement states "water rates included", that would be a safe assumption to make and provide a valid defense against being charged twice for the same service.

If the agreement makes no mention of water charges, the safe assumption is that they are in addition to the rent.

If the tenancy agreement makes no mention of the fridge being empty, it's hardly grounds to assume that the LL will fill it.

kylararlin

Facetiousness aside, (though I have been in the unfortunate position of moving into a flat with a filled fridge- a story for another day!), I guess assumption is the mother of all f*ckups in this case. The assumption being that all payable amounts should have been laid out when they were agreeing the rent or mentioned in the original advert. Lesson learned.

Thank you all for replying.

G_M

I have to withdraw my initialpost -

In most tenancies, utility costs, which includes water, are not included in the rent. So the tenant has to pay their own gas, electric, phone.... and water.

In this case, instead of paying the water company, the tenant pays the landlord.

There is no issue unless the tenant was explicitly told the rent included water.

Kynthia

Utilities are rarely included when renting a property. What made them think water would be any different to gas, electric, council tax, phone, etc?