Dodgy Stipulations in Tenancy Agreement

topdaddy_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

Is he expecting the number to stay the same? Quite a few areas (BT anyway) will give a new number on change of account holder

Even more so they are assuming you want a landline. I know i dont

princeofpounds

My only thought is about cases where changing the utilities would mean a modification to the property? Perhaps the landlord is sensitive to that.

That is a different matter as it involves altering the fabric of the building, and that would need permission* even if the clause were NOT in the contract.

* or the payment of damages if no permission given and not returned to its original condition on exit

IronWolf

I think I had similar clauses in the last TA I signed and in the end I just did what I wanted with the utilities and they didn't make a fuss at the end, all they asked for was the final bill to show I didn't have any outstanding balances, which they had no reason to see but I gave them anyway to avoid hassle.

At the end of the tenancy it isn't hard to find out who the supplier is to a property anyway, I had to do it with my new flat as the LL seemed to have no idea lol.

thesaint

VespaRick wrote: »

I've sent the contract back asking for clarification and pointing them in the direction of the OFT website

Wrong or rightly, I would not take on a tenant that sent me a contract back with a load of bumph from the Office of Fair Trading.

I would consider a prospective tenant that wanted to vary the terms though.

G_M

thesaint wrote: »

Wrong or rightly, I would not take on a tenant that sent me a contract back with a load of bumph from the Office of Fair Trading.

I would consider a prospective tenant that wanted to vary the terms though.

Indeed.

My advice would have been to simply sign the agreement, knowing full well which bits could be enforced (eg monthly rent) and which bits could not (utilities).

You have now labelled yourself at best as a knowledgable tenant and at worst as a trouble-maker/smart-alec.

Let us know if you get the tenancy or if the LL/agent decides to let to a more passive tenant!

VespaRick

thesaint wrote: »

Wrong or rightly, I would not take on a tenant that sent me a contract back with a load of bumph from the Office of Fair Trading.

I would consider a prospective tenant that wanted to vary the terms though.

I whole heartedly disagree....This provision stood out for me because I remember reading in the paper...

"some landlords and letting agents are breaking the law by issuing contracts preventing tenants from switching energy supplier to get a cheaper deal. A rental contract can stipulate that tenants ask a landlord before switching energy supplier, but it can't refuse permission to switch. Some letting agents have struck deals with energy companies such as Utility Warehouse, where the agent is paid commission if tenants use the firm's services..." -- Guardian

My view is that after pointing out to the Estate agent that they can't do this and why; one of three things will happen:
a) if it was an error they will say that it is an error and change it in the contract
b). if it was not an error; lie and say that it was an error and change it in the contract
c). pull out of the deal, which to me is an admission of guilt

If they chose C then, fine because I'd rather know up front if I'm dealing with a dishonest LL/LE and there are plenty of other properties out there being let by honest people. If I was a landlord I'd want to know if i've put something in the contract that wasn't legal that perhaps I did not know about; and I wouldn't pull out because I'm not that sensitive about making a mistake.

So update is the LE has come back to me and said there was an error and that they will redraft the agreement.

Herbalus

VespaRick wrote: »

I whole heartedly disagree....This provision stood out for me because I remember reading in the paper...

"some landlords and letting agents are breaking the law by issuing contracts preventing tenants from switching energy supplier to get a cheaper deal. A rental contract can stipulate that tenants ask a landlord before switching energy supplier, but it can't refuse permission to switch. Some letting agents have struck deals with energy companies such as Utility Warehouse, where the agent is paid commission if tenants use the firm's services..." -- Guardian

Glad you've got it sorted to your satisfaction.

However, what most are recommending on here (and is what I do myself), is to simply ignore the clause in the contract and change utility providers anyway (if you wish of course).

Where the utility is not provided as part of the tenancy i.e. tenant pays landlord for water etc, the tenant can choose whichever company he wants, regardless of if a clause in the contract says they can't.

PasturesNew

princeofpounds wrote: »

All this is typical stuff for a badly-drafted AST written by someone with little lettings law knowledge (or someone who has the knowledge but wants to bamboozle tenants into behaving as they desire)

This ... and ...

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I had some terms like that in my last tenancy agreement and I just ignored them along with most other clauses as they were unenforcable nonsense.

This.

Callie22

Our most recent tenancy agreement had some ridiculous clauses in it, one stating that we weren't allowed to hang shirts from the curtain rails (no other items of clothing, just shirts). It also said that we had to forward on any post for the landlord, at our own expense. The agency didn't know they were there and agreed that they were stupid clauses but that was 'just how the agreement was'. They'd clearly just downloaded it from the internet and never read it.

jjlandlord

Callie22 wrote: »

It also said that we had to forward on any post for the landlord, at our own expense.

This is a rather standard clause, and I would not it ridiculous.