Dodgy Stipulations in Tenancy Agreement

SerialRenter

jjlandlord wrote: »

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

If a landlord asked me to forward their mail, the only thing i'd forward them would be this link:

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/redirection

Cheeky gits!

jjlandlord

SerialRenter wrote: »

If a landlord asked me to forward their mail, the only thing i'd forward them would be this link:

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/redirection

Cheeky gits!

Him asking you is not the same as you agreeing by contract.

Sometimes there are outrageous clauses in contracts, which will most likely be deemed unfair (and thus void) in court or for which there is no loss in case of breach (so no compensation due).

The fact remains that when signing a contract one agrees to be bound by its terms so it cannot be good advice to suggest to sign anything but then ignore all that is not convenient.

Pixie5740

I'd rather just forward the post, which is free, than have the LL turning up at my home to collect it.

Pixie5740

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

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.

You can wholeheartedly disagree all you like. Thesaint and GM are landlords and are giving you a landlord's point of view.

I'm not disputing that you are correct about the clause not being correct but don't be surprised if by making waves before there is even a contract in place this agency/landlord chooses not to let to you.

It's all just a game. It's only if at the end of the tenancy that the LL tries to impose some fine on you or something because your using Utility Co A instead of Utility Co B that you need to tell them clause isn't enforceable.

Likewise if your deposit isn't protected. You keep that ace up your sleeve until as and when you need it.

Annie1960

VespaRick wrote: »

I've sent the contract back asking for clarification and pointing them in the direction of the OFT website. Let's see what the reply is. I have no intention of keeping the same telephone number, as I'm not interested in receiving calls for previous tenants. I just want to choose the utilities provider that meets my requirements and that provides the best value for money.

I agree with your approach. Better to challenge them now and see how they react, that sign something and have problems after you have moved in.

If their reaction is reasonable, then you can have confidence in signing.

00ec25

what has not been discussed is why the clauses are there in the first place and therefore what is the LL concerned about. Agreed the clauses are open to interpretation and yours is that they are "dodgy", mine is that their purpose is to protect the LL (obviously!) by providing instruction as to who is liable for what from when .

"take over"
the LL is alluding to the precise moment in time when your liability commences and his ceases. Obviously he must pay during a void period so he will not want to be paying if someone else can be made liable, ie you when you take possession of the property and more importantly at the end of the contract when you leave. Although obviously in that case documented tenancy termination will confirm the end date so this clause is probably belt and braces unnecessary

"keep same connected"
to me that does not necessarily mean supplier, it instead should mean supply. Having to get a supply reconnected is an expensive proposition so if (for whatever reason) it was disconnected during your tenancy then LL will need to reconnect it before he can re-let. Obviously the LL does not want to have pay the reconnection fee when the disconnection was your "doing" so this clause is worth having for the LL

"pay for gas and electric light and power which shall be consumed or supplied"
rather a belt and braces statement to reinforce the fact that the LL will not be held liable for your usage. Of course such statement is pointless since the liability rests with whoever is named as the customer, which leads on to....

"Not change the supplier of the services referred to above without the prior consent of the Landlord or the Landlord’s Agent....details of the new supplier and account numbers etc."
The LL wants to ensure he knows who the supplier is in case you do a runner and the LL ends up repossessing, at which point he needs to close out your account(s) and take them on himself, which is not hard to do but is easier if he knows in advance which supplier to contact. So a sensible clause to guard against a possible inconvenience for the LL

"take over the telephone"
same principles as above. I agreed to my tenant installing cable phones and disconnecting from BT. When BT subsequently upgraded the lines in the area then, because my property was not a customer, they physically removed the cable connecting the house to the street pole. If in the future the house needs to use a non cable supplier who therefore must access a BT landline I will have to pay a considerably large cost to be reconnected that the normal situation of then simply switching the service back on at the exchange. Hence I checked the implications of this before allowing my tenant to install cable

"The Landlord reserves the right to withdraw, for reasonable grounds and upon reasonable notice, any such consent previously given."
patently this is standard legalise intended to allow for unforeseen situations and therefore the ability to negate all that went before . I doubt any such situation would occur where reasonable grounds would exists to exercise it so this clause is indeed "dodgy"