Letting agent

Dead_Eye_Jones

thelawnet wrote: »

Longer is very unlikely to mean better.

In fact, it is likely to be worse.

Given a 23-page tenancy agreement it

(a) almost certainly contains numerous unfair clauses under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, because it's hard to see how you could have 23 pages of fair and reasonable clauses and
(b) is HIGHLY unlikely to be understandable by the tenant, and as a result it would be impossible to prove in court that the tenant understood all the implications of a 23-page document (presumably couched in legalese, which is prohibited under s7(1) of Unfair Terms regs) and as such it would be much harder to enforce any of your rights under the contract.

It's quite possible PainSmith have updated the contract in the last 7 years; I suspect it might well be worth your while to fork out another £80, especially if the contract has actually been reviewed by OFT.

Or maybe it was simply written with a big font :P.

scrummy_mummy_2

I didn't say that a longer agreement meant better...I said it was more comprehensive. By comprehensive, I meant that it clearly defines who is responsible for what, when and how. This avoids any misunderstandings over silly things like who should clean gutters/drains/get rid of rubbish/the list goes on and is thus COMPREHENSIVE. You have inferred that it contains 23 pages of clauses....it doesn't.

I didn't say it hadn't been updated....I said I purchased a copy 7 years ago.
I have updated it through Painsmith several times since then...the last time being in April following the new Tenancy Deposit Laws.

It is actually in very clear English and does not contain 'unfair clauses'...on the contrary, it sets out CLEARLY who is responsible for what and how things (such as the deposit) are dealt with. This avoids confusion around rights and responsibilities for both myself and the client.

I'm usre the solicitor in question would be interested to hear/see your allegations of a defamatory nature though! as she is the solicitor for the NAEA who has written it!

franklee

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

Marveen Smith is the solicitor for the National Association of Estate Agents...her Agreement is comprehensive (I use it!) and it is 23 pages long.

I know of Marveen Smith as she's often referred to on landlordzone by some of the better posters, I've also heard her on moneybox talking about renting.

I'd be most interested to hear what her contract says about repairs to appliances, such as washing machines, that are supplied by the landlord. Does it make the landlord responsible for repair provided the tenant hasn't misused it?

The best contract I've seen is the RICS one, available for about 30 quid from their site IIRC.

thelawnet

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

I didn't say that a longer agreement meant better...I said it was more comprehensive. By comprehensive, I meant that it clearly defines who is responsible for what, when and how. This avoids any misunderstandings over silly things like who should clean gutters/drains/get rid of rubbish/the list goes on and is thus COMPREHENSIVE. You have inferred that it contains 23 pages of clauses....it doesn't.

I didn't say it hadn't been updated....I said I purchased a copy 7 years ago.
I have updated it through Painsmith several times since then...the last time being in April following the new Tenancy Deposit Laws.

It is actually in very clear English and does not contain 'unfair clauses'...on the contrary, it sets out CLEARLY who is responsible for what and how things (such as the deposit) are dealt with. This avoids confusion around rights and responsibilities for both myself and the client.

I'm usre the solicitor in question would be interested to hear/see your allegations of a defamatory nature though! as she is the solicitor for the NAEA who has written it!

No need to get defensive, the fact is that a 7-year-old agreement is, by definition, 7 years out of date with current understanding of the law and particularly the Unfair Contract Terms regulations as interpreted by the courts and OFT. This is not a defamatory statement, it is a fact about any legal document - one that is 7 year's old is rarely still going to be up-to-date.

I am a bit confused on the updates issue however: you described it as a one-off purchase and said that you updated it as you needed, most recently to include details for the TDS. This seemed to imply that you had made these modifications yourself to the original document. However I see that you actually got the info from PainSmith. It seems improbable that PainSmith undertake to provide free updates in perpetuity and hence it would not in fact be a one-off cost? Could you indicate how much you have paid for your updates?

scrummy_mummy_2

In response to thelawnet:
For small/regular updates Painsmith provided these to me free of charge after I had purchased the original agreement...so, a one off fee applied. I called them once a year or so to check for updates/changes, and they E mailed me an up to date electronic version of the current AST. Whether this was an oversight on their part or not I don't know! but I was never charged.
I called them in April this year to check for updates as the new Tenancy Deposit Scheme was coming in to force and I had a change over of tenants.... apparently, they had updated their agreement, but it did not contain the terms necessary to cover the NLA/HFIS scheme (of which I am a member)
It was during this contact for the first time that the purchase of an entirely NEW Agreement was raised, for which there would be a charge. However....I was told the new agreement thay had just drafted was unsuitable for my needs, because I was joining the HFIS/NLA scheme
I will call again tomorrow actually because I've just read what I've posted and it seems bonkers now...anyway...that's what happened!
I contacted the NLA and they described (in conjunction with this forum) wording to insert into the agreement I already had, which was appropriate for the new deposit arrangements. I put the clause(s) in and that is the version I am now using...but I will ring them (Painsmith) tomorrow actually to find out why they haven't got a version with the NLA/HFIS scheme wording....

In response to franklee...
I went on a course Marveen was running for the NAEA about 5 years ago...it is not often I come across people who are frighteningly good at what they do but this woman is a true tour de force...you WOULD NOT want to get on the wrong side of her and her knows her stuff inside and out. AWESOME!

This is what (an excerpt from) the contract says.
Statutory Repairing Obligations
26.3 To comply with the obligations to repair the Premises as set out in sections 11 to 16 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (As amended by the Housing Act 1988). These sections impose on the landlord obligations to repair the structure of the premises and exterior (including drains, gutters and pipes) certain installations for the supply of water, electricity and gas; sanitary appliances including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, and for space heating and water heating, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water and electricity. This obligation arises only after notice has been given to the Landlord by the Tenant as set out in clause 10.2.

END>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The statutory repair obligations are the ones you MUST comply with...however, in the contract the LL IS responsible for repairs to electrical appliances left in the property (fixtures and fittings) and noted on the inventory UNLESS the tenant has caused damage as a result of negligence.
There isn't enough space here to give you all of the relevant text...but it is very fair and clear and well worth the money in my opinion.

Hope that helps...I'll let you know how I get on with Painsmith tomorrow.