Letting agent problems

roses

thelawnet wrote: »

It is an unfair contract term, and void in law.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft669.pdf

OLD TERM:
Provided that the landlord could enter the property with his or her keys 24 hours after making a request for access if the tenant was unable to grant access.

NEW TERM: The term was revised to provide that this right only applies where the landlord requires entry for repair purposes.

It will not.

See e.g., http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3007563.stm

Excuse my language but !!!!!! is this new law about?

In future, the tenant will no longer be automatically duty bound to pay for any item damaged or destroyed during the course of the tenancy, regardless of fault.



If I had a tenant that damaged something (not wear & tear) then I would expect them to pay for it!

lynzpower

roses wrote: »

Excuse my language but !!!!!! is this new law about?

In future, the tenant will no longer be automatically duty bound to pay for any item damaged or destroyed during the course of the tenancy, regardless of fault.



If I had a tenant that damaged something (not wear & tear) then I would expect them to pay for it!

I read this to mean inportant use of the word automaticalluy. i presume it refer to the holding of deposits and using of arbitration schemes.

therefor e LLS wont be able to automatically take the "damage" it will need to be sanctioned and agreed through the new processes.

Meatballs

roses wrote: »

Excuse my language but !!!!!! is this new law about?

In future, the tenant will no longer be automatically duty bound to pay for any item damaged or destroyed during the course of the tenancy, regardless of fault.



If I had a tenant that damaged something (not wear & tear) then I would expect them to pay for it!

It's not the law, but it is guidance on how to interpret it from a large official body.

An example old term to go with that statement would be: The tenant pays for any and all damages to property that occurs during their lease no matter what the cause.

Which is obviously not fair...

thelawnet

roses wrote: »

Excuse my language but !!!!!! is this new law about?

In future, the tenant will no longer be automatically duty bound to pay for any item damaged or destroyed during the course of the tenancy, regardless of fault.



If I had a tenant that damaged something (not wear & tear) then I would expect them to pay for it!

The key is "regardless of fault". If it is not the tenant's fault, he should not have to pay for it. E.g., if an appliance breaks down, then it is the landlord that should pay.

olly300

roses wrote: »

Excuse my language but !!!!!! is this new law about?

In future, the tenant will no longer be automatically duty bound to pay for any item damaged or destroyed during the course of the tenancy, regardless of fault.



If I had a tenant that damaged something (not wear & tear) then I would expect them to pay for it!

If say the property got burgled and the burglar broke/destroyed your furniture when they forced entry into the property would you expect the tenant to pay? Off course not. You would claim it on insurance or if it was below the excess sort it out yourself. However some letting agents had terms that clearly made the tenant liable for any damage like that when it was beyond the control of either party.

thesaint

(idon'tunderstand)thelawnet, How have you determined that the agent does not have right of entry?

Originally Posted by thelawnet
Or to decline them entirely on the basis that the landlord has broken into the house and caused much trouble already. You might normally grant them access as a favour if they have been reasonable, but given the trouble caused, best bet is to change the locks and keep them out.

Like I said before, the landlord has not entered the house, how have you determined that he has 'Broken into the house'? If he hasn't, you are mistaken/lying.

Eh? Why are you talking about calling the police? I never suggested this, I was pointing out that the landlord & agent's behaviour is unreasonable.

I am talking about calling the police because you stated that the landlord broke into the house, this is not "Unreasonable", this is a criminal offence, get my point yet?

Originally Posted by thelawnet. An unfair term is not binding, never was binding, and can never be binding.

It is binding until someone (A judge?) decides otherwise.

Taken to court on what basis?

For falsely claiming that the landlord broke into the property, and changing the locks on the property which is not allowed in English law.

And no, there are no fees, the court fees are paid by the claimant in the small claims court, and legal costs are not awarded.

You say there are no fees, then contradict yourself in the same sentence by saying that there are court fees.

Court fees are paid by the claimant, and recovered from the defendant.

Are you a partner in a firm of solicitors?

thelawnet

Unfortunately you are wrong in every respect.

thesaint wrote: »

(idon'tunderstand)thelawnet, How have you determined that the agent does not have right of entry?

Because the contractual term is in violation of the long-standing right of quiet enjoyment and is therefore not binding under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Plenty on the web to this effect if you have a look.

Like I said before, the landlord has not entered the house, how have you determined that he has 'Broken into the house'? If he hasn't, you are mistaken/lying.

As I explained already, this was a manner of speaking, rather than a literal description. He has entered the house against the tenant's wishes, technically not breaking and entering because he has not broken, but morally, it is, and would justify, as I explained, the tenant asserting his legal rights aggressively.


I am talking about calling the police because you stated that the landlord broke into the house, this is not "Unreasonable", this is a criminal offence, get my point yet?

No, I didn't say he had commited any offence.

It is binding until someone (A judge?) decides otherwise.

That is not the case. What does binding mean? It means it can be legally enforced, i.e. by means of the court. That is the only remedy for breach of contract. There are numerous documents if you care to search google to indicate that such a clause is unfair.

For falsely claiming that the landlord broke into the property, and changing the locks on the property which is not allowed in English law.

Nobody is suggesting falsely claiming anything.

Changing the locks is not illegal, there is no law against it, the only remedy for the landlord would be to claim he had suffered a loss as a result. But if you have replaced the locks with locks of the same standard, there would be no loss occasioned.

You say there are no fees, then contradict yourself in the same sentence by saying that there are court fees.

Court fees are paid by the claimant, and recovered from the defendant.


Indeed they are, but only if the claimant wins. Given that you haven't actually given any valid grounds for the landlord to sue, that would be unlikely. And note that the fee will be relatively small, £30 for £100, £50 for £500, and £80 for up to £1,000 and £120 for up to £5,000.

wendykearney

UPdate,

We've got the cottage we looked at yesterday! yipee. Just waiting for Tennacy agrrement to be drawn up.He's bought the property but as he's own house hasn't sold he wants to rent it till for 6mnths. He's a first timer and this is a one off rental so it works out well for us both.
I went into LA yesterday to verbally tell them we're handing inour notice and to clarify when we had to start teh one month notice from. They (surprisngly) said we could do it from yesterday and didn't have to wait until the 4th which is technically when it should be on. This iis a bonus for us so i quickly wrote out the otice and hand delivered it.
I also wrote that in future no addmittance with out the correct notice and without us being there, explaining that there actions whilst we were away caused problems, ie the cat being trapped inide for over 36hrs without water etc.
So we will wait to se what they say next....

I also think that giving us notice so quick is going to backfire on the LL. " houses down, identical property but better kept up, and slightly cheaper has been on market since last november... If he is ahving problems with money then ahving this property empty with no income is going to hurt.. As it also has a damp problem, leak in the roof amongst many other things that i've been waiting for months to be rrepaired he hasn't a chance of getting full asking price.

HIs loss my gain(part from the hasle of moving again!)

wendy

thesaint

thelawnet wrote: »

Unfortunately you are wrong in every respect.

Really? Could you point out to me and everyone else reading where the OP stated that the landlord* entered the house.


*Denotes a big clue.;)

wendykearney

It was the Letting Agent that entered the property withut permission NOT the Landlord. He hasn't been near teh property for ove 2 years according to the neighbours.
As i've been told today neighbours saw srtangers in the property last friday it looks like they did a viewing but i can't prove anything. You'd think they'd know better wouldn't you?

wendy