Extortionate tenancy renewal fee

somethingcorporate

Except the contract doesn't say the LL can enter at any point in time; section 12.3 includes this: "following a prior request".

The LL would be expected to mitigate his losses and the situation you have concocted would appear foolish to anyone so I don't think a judge would look favorably on an LL arranging viewings with potential tenants that are traveling significant distances (with costs large enough to consider suing) without the agreement of the exiting tenants that the viewing would be convenient.

I am not saying that fools are not permitted rights under the justice system - far from it. Judges would consider what is reasonable or a reasonable person would do. Given the LL is a professional running a business there would be a higher expectation on him and even a layman like me can see issues with arranging the viewings you have suggested.

thesaint

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Except the contract doesn't say the LL can enter at any point in time; section 12.3 includes this: "following a prior request".

The LL would be expected to mitigate his losses and the situation you have concocted would appear foolish to anyone so I don't think a judge would look favorably on an LL arranging viewings with potential tenants that are traveling significant distances (with costs large enough to consider suing) without the agreement of the exiting tenants that the viewing would be convenient.

You are reaching.
"A prior request" means that the landlord has given the tenant prior notice.

How does he mitigate his losses if the prospective tenant sues him for his train fare? The train fare is what it is, he can't mitigate it.

It doesn't have to be a "large" loss, it might be £25.
A prospective tenant will feel aggrieved whether it was £1 or £100.

ConfusedofYorkshire

pedgepuk wrote: »

I would prefer a rolling one, i.e. Periodic Tenancy, although not sure if the LL would due to the security etc.

I'd ask the ll direct. The la obviously won't be encouraging it but it sounds like you're not going anywhere and the ll is probably being charged too. The la doesn't deserve money for doing nothing

somethingcorporate

He can mitigate the scenario coming up. If he hasn't gained agreement that the viewing is convenient for the current tenant then the situation is of his own creation.

If he hasn't acted reasonably (and gaining agreement to enter the current tenants property is reasonable) then it would be his hard luck.

thesaint

somethingcorporate wrote: »

He can mitigate the scenario coming up. If he hasn't gained agreement that the viewing is convenient for the current tenant then the situation is of his own creation.

If he hasn't acted reasonably (and gaining agreement to enter the current tenants property is reasonable) then it would be his hard luck.

So you are saying that it isn't possible for a landlord to sustain a loss due to a tenant not allowing a viewing he has contractually agreed to.

somethingcorporate

Edit: unreasonable of me to answer a question with a question. My answer to yours is no, it is perfectly reasonable for a LL to pass on costs to the existing tenants as long as they are not in breach of the various tenancy legislation, reasonable contract terms etc. However, I don't think your example is a strong one and I would hope a judge would employ common sense and say the LL has acted unreasonably. There are going to be situations where access for the LL is not a reasonable request, even if notice is given.

So you are saying a judge would force existing tenants to cover a LLs loss for agreeing a viewing with a potential tenant without actually checking that the viewing is convenient with the existing tenant?

I think a blanket contract term that allows access at any time in the final month would certainly not be reasonable, regardless of notice.

Just because something is in a contract doesn't make it binding/lawful/reasonable/fair etc.

thesaint

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I think a blanket contract term that allows access at any time in the final month would certainly not be reasonable, regardless of notice.

Just because something is in a contract doesn't make it binding/lawful/reasonable/fair etc.

We(well I am not) are not arguing that the landlord just turns up.
I have already stated that the landlord has given prior notice of the viewing.

Unless you are saying that the clause is unfair, so completely void, and the landlord is prevented from giving reasonable notice of a viewing.

This whole (side) discussion is about whether it is possible for a landlord to sustain a loss due to the actions of a tenant not complying with a lawful clause.

You seem to be saying he can't, but arguing on both sides.
If he can, then he is entitled to sue for his losses.

somethingcorporate

If he can incur losses then yes he can sue for them - although I fail to see a situation where it would genuinely arise.

rpc

thesaint wrote: »

You are reaching.
"A prior request" means that the landlord has given the tenant prior notice.

A request means that they must ask. If they must ask, it is implicit that the T must agree (perhaps by inaction).

The clause requires both a request and written notice.

I don't think this clause gives carte blanche to the LL/LA, but nor does it permit T to ban all viewings. The word "reasonable" is probably the key word in the clause and so any court would determine what the man on the Clapham omnibus things of it.

Each visit does require 24 hours written notice, which usually seems to be a hard bit for agents to observe. The viewing rights could not be asserted if written notice cannot be proven to have been served.

jjlandlord

rpc wrote: »

A request means that they must ask. If they must ask, it is implicit that the T must agree (perhaps by inaction).

The clause is that the tenant must agree to the request.
That's the point of such clauses: To bind the tenant to accept, or at least not to absolutely refuse.

rpc wrote: »

The clause requires both a request and written notice.

Interestingly, for some reason (which I'm guessing is the practicality of organising viewings), the clauses are such that 24 hour written notice is not necessary during the last month of the tenancy, only a 'request' is.
Now, obviously a request 30s in advance will probably be deemed unreasonable. However I think that an oral request sufficiently in advance would stand.