Letting agent problems

Meatballs

Ok, I will take that point on board that if a clause would constitute a criminal offence it would be illegal. As in the eviction for 14 days arrears; and eating babies.

Personally I wasn't really thinking about that term with my last post, more the terms about the entrance to the property with 24 hours notice to effect repairs etc. Is this usually punishable as a criminal offence (harrassment?) or civil?

These unfair/unenforcable clauses that don't actually constitute a criminal offence - would it be correct to refer to them as illegal? I'm thinking thats where the conflict of the arguement between you two is partly arising

thelawnet

Meatballs wrote: »

Ok, I will take that point on board that if a clause would constitute a criminal offence it would be illegal. As in the eviction for 14 days arrears; and eating babies.

Personally I wasn't really thinking about that term with my last post, more the terms about the entrance to the property with 24 hours notice to effect repairs etc. Is this usually punishable as a criminal offence (harrassment?) or civil?

These unfair/unenforcable clauses that don't actually constitute a criminal offence - would it be correct to refer to them as illegal? I'm thinking thats where the conflict of the arguement between you two is partly arising

I don't think that's the reason. I said that there are illegal clauses in the contract here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=5578761&postcount=27 and made reference to the eviction clauses as such. Nobody in this thread has used the word illegal except in respect of these eviction provisions, which certainly are. Of course we could discuss the distinction between illegal and unenforceable and precise use of terminology, but there is no point in doing as is not necessary because the distinction has not figured in the discussion to date.

In any case, thesaints has said that there is NOTHING illegal about the contract, which you will agree is not the case.