We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Delete post
Comments
-
jjlandlord wrote: »Quiet enjoyment is not absolute.
If a clause gives the landlord a right of access, and that right is reasonable and exercised reasonably, then it does not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Regarding access for repairs and inspections, note that the word used to describe what the landlord must do is 'give notice' not 'ask permission', which is reasonable since the clause gives the landlord a right of access (tenant has accepted it).
Now, regarding keys, even if the contract states that the tenant must give a key to the landlord it is not clear what loss could result from a breach.
Similarly what loss could result in denied inspection.
Nor proveable loss in denied viewings. The LL cannot prove that the perspective tenant would have definitely rented the property had they seen it0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »In other circumstances, that's exactly the kind of thing I would say. It's largely semantics, though. The offence has been committed in a factual sense, the Law merely has to turn the cogs to make it true in a legal sense.
I don't think it's pedantry, I think it's plain wrong. The contract is legally-binding within the law. Disputes are resolved through legal action (assuming that the parties can't agree in any other way).
I won't bother with the "this is what's wrong with our society" hyperbole - you can see where I'm going with that.
Semantics in the case of law is really the true judge. Case and point: I was punched a number of years ago on a night out. The act happened, certainly my nose was proof of that. But I cannot say that a specific person was to blame, the offence will never be published in the legal ( case law ) sense, and so in the eyes of the law, as well as all reported statistics the assault never happened. When figures were published, this incident was not part of that.
The contract MAY be legally binding, the truth is you will never know, unless you take it to court. Case and point: look at the private parking sub forum on MSE. Parking eye win some cases but lose others, and their whole company is governed by contracts. In fact of cases which got to court and are defended, they lose the majority, which if a company clearing tens of millions cannot construct a valid contract, the 'lay' person shall certainly struggle.0 -
Quiet enjoyment is not absolute, but it does conflict with the LLs contractual rights.
No, it does not conflict because, as you admit, it is not absolute: It stops where the access right starts.the reality is that the LL will likely bare the bring of cost enforcing the agreement
No, the reality is that if a landlord goes to court to get an injunction the tenant will be made to pay legal costs.0 -
Case and point: look at the private parking sub forum on MSE. Parking eye win some cases but lose others, and their whole company is governed by contracts. In fact of cases which got to court and are defended, they lose the majority, which if a company clearing tens of millions cannot construct a valid contract, the 'lay' person shall certainly struggle.
You couldn't really have picked a worse example. The PPCs' entire business model relies upon the abuse of contracts.
One of the issues with them is whether driving past their signage constitutes informed consent to entering into a contract with them.
Beyond that, there is already an established legal principle that a company cannot fine an individual.
Beyond that, the above principle is incorporated into the POPLA code of practice in the concept of Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss (GPEOL).
So when a PPC seeks to enforce a parking "contract" all of those issues (and many more) potentially come into play.
Compared to that can of worms, the situation with Tenancy Agreements is pretty straightforward. There is informed consent because each party has the opportunity to take time to read the contract and obtain professional advice. And there is the possibility of modifying the contract through negotiation. And there is protective legislation for things that the Law deems critical.0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »It would seem that this is a controversial area amongst actual housing professionals.
On the one hand, legislation provides for quiet enjoyment, and stipulates that the LL has rights of access for repairs and inspection with 24 hours notice, or immediately in the case of an emergency.
On the other hand, a clause expecting provision to be made by the Tenant for viewings at the end of the tenancy is common in most Tenancy Agreements.
Housing law trumps whatever is in the contract meaning that a landlord can have whatever clauses they like in the contract but they can be totally toothless.
The tenancy agreement can say, for example, that the property must be professionally cleaned at the end, the notice period the landlord gives is 2 weeks and the tenant must give the landlord a bottle of champagne on their birthday. Waste of ink.0 -
The tenancy agreement can say, for example, that the property must be professionally cleaned at the end, the notice period the landlord gives is 2 weeks and the tenant must give the landlord a bottle of champagne on their birthday. Waste of ink.
Bad examples...
In general it is a waste of ink because it is badly drafted. However if well drafted these 3 hypothetical clauses could be valid.
Certainly a professional clean can be a valid clause.
Bottle of champagne on a certain date every year? It can be part of the consideration (ie. rent).
Notice period from landlord? Indeed that one wouldn't be valid to end a periodic AST, but could be valid to end a fixed term AST (ie in a break clause).0 -
Housing law trumps whatever is in the contract meaning that a landlord can have whatever clauses they like in the contract but they can be totally toothless.
A Tenancy Agreement ought to be drafted to be compliant with relevant legislation from the outset. But, no, Housing "law" does not trump everything in the contract. It only affects those things that are in scope of the legislation.
In practice, a particular clause might be within scope of legislation (ie. an annual gas safety certification), or a clause might not (ie. giving the Landlord a set of keys if the locks have to be changed).
Both of those types of clause are contractually valid - the main tests being (a) do they contravene legislation, and (b) are they fair & reasonable?
In a simple society, what is not forbidden is mandatory - ours is not such a society.
Alternatively: when it says on the side of your Cornflakes, "This guarantee does not affect your statutory rights", that is exactly what we are talking about here. A Tenancy Agreement can say many things, none of them can affect your statutory rights. However, as long as they don't, and as long as they are reasonable, they are lawful, binding and potentially enforceable.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards