Changes to tenancy - removing a previously included utility

cartoonheart

I've been renting in a houseshare for several years, with the agreement being that my monthly payment covered rent plus any associated utilities for myself. I have two housemates that have the same arrangements with our letting agent.

My tenancy is due for renewal in April 2015. The landlord is asking for a small rental increase which I have no problem with. However they are saying that the new agreement will mean that the water bills are no longer included in my monthly payment.

I don't understand how this would work - given that both of my housemates have their own tenancy agreements which include water bills in their monthly payment. Both have only just signed new agreements in the last month. Why is mine different?

I'd just like to understand whether this is something that the letting agent/landlord can insist on? I don't see why I should have to pay additionally for water bills when my housemates have this cost included (and pay the same amount as me).

Any guidance would be appreciated!

G_M

Just to check - the landlord does not live with you in the property?
And this is England?
Is this an HMO?

You can agree, and sign, ask for the new water clause to be removed, then sign, or refuse to sign.

If you refuse to sign (or simply 'forget'.....), you will move to a Statutory Periodic Tenancy (see link below), at the same rent and conditions as now.

Of course, the LL might then decide to serve a S21 Notice (2 months) and then evict.

Ending/Renewing an AST (what happens when the Fixed Term ends?)(What is a Periodic Tenancy?)(How can a LL remove a tenant?)(How can a tenant end a tenancy?)

I also don't understand how this would work in practice. Will the water bill be in your name? Will you be paying for your housemates? Or will the bill remain in your LL's name?

cartoonheart

Thanks for the response.

In answer to your questions, my previous/current agreement is a short hold tenancy agreement, but the letting agent is saying that they no longer offer these and the new agreement will be a license agreement. I have no idea what that is or what the difference is?

Yes, the property is in England.

I'm not sure how it would work in practise either. However it just seems inherently unfair that my flatmates signed their new agreements several weeks ago and their monthly payment included water amongst the rest of the utilities however I'm expected to pay the same amount and yet also pay for water. Especially when we all use it equally! How would that even equal out?

I'm going to be asking a lot more questions of the agent, that's for sure!

Guest101

cartoonheart wrote: »

Thanks for the response.

In answer to your questions, my previous/current agreement is a short hold tenancy agreement, but the letting agent is saying that they no longer offer these and the new agreement will be a license agreement. I have no idea what that is or what the difference is?

Yes, the property is in England.

I'm not sure how it would work in practise either. However it just seems inherently unfair that my flatmates signed their new agreements several weeks ago and their monthly payment included water amongst the rest of the utilities however I'm expected to pay the same amount and yet also pay for water. Especially when we all use it equally! How would that even equal out?

I'm going to be asking a lot more questions of the agent, that's for sure!

Imsorry but lol at the not offering these anymore comment. That's unfortunate since u are a tenant and have tenants rights.

The options are: accept
Negotiate
Refuse - in which case eviction may follow, this takes 3-5 months in practice- depending on area

G_M

cartoonheart wrote: »

Thanks for the response.

In answer to your questions, my previous/current agreement is a short hold tenancy agreement, but the letting agent is saying that they no longer offer these and the new agreement will be a license agreement. I have no idea what that is or what the difference is?

Yes, the property is in England.

Now finish answering my questions! In light of your new information ('licence') it is even more important that you respond!

I'm not sure how it would work in practise either. However it just seems inherently unfair that my flatmates signed their new agreements several weeks ago and their monthly payment included water amongst the rest of the utilities however I'm expected to pay the same amount and yet also pay for water. Especially when we all use it equally! How would that even equal out?

I'm going to be asking a lot more questions of the agent, that's for sure!

When asking qustions - esp relevant ones, always get answers.............

cartoonheart

My apologies, I am new to this!

No, the landlord doesn't live a the property with us. We have always dealt with a letting/management agent, so I'm assuming that is the HMO you are referring to.

Guest101

cartoonheart wrote: »

My apologies, I am new to this!

No, the landlord doesn't live a the property with us. We have always dealt with a letting/management agent, so I'm assuming that is the HMO you are referring to.

As above - accept, negotiate or refuse ( say nothing )

jjlandlord

Regarding the water bill, I'm assuming that they intend to split it equally amongst the tenants. OP would thus pay 1/3 of the overall bill.
Certainly, that would be something to clarify and to have in writing should OP decide to accept this proposal.

Guest101 wrote: »

Imsorry but lol at the not offering these anymore comment. That's unfortunate since u are a tenant and have tenants rights.

The tenancy will end and can be replaced by a license. There's nothing 'wrong' with that.

The issue of course is that, should it come to that, a court might still conclude that that license is in fact a tenancy after considering all the facts.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

Regarding the water bill, I'm assuming that they intend to split it equally amongst the tenants. OP would thus pay 1/3 of the overall bill.
Certainly, that would be something to clarify and to have in writing should OP decide to accept this proposal.



The tenancy will end and can be replaced by a license. There's nothing 'wrong' with that.

The issue of course is that, should it come to that, a court might still conclude that that license is in fact a tenancy after considering all the facts.

Presumebly only if the tenant agrees. I'm not aware of a method for the LL to amend the tenancy in such a manner unilaterally

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

Presumebly only if the tenant agrees.

Obviously, but that's what is being discussed here, isn't it? So let's stay on topic and not start creating empty arguments.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

Obviously, but that's what is being discussed here, isn't it? So let's stay on topic and not start creating empty arguments.

it certainly wasnt obvious from your post to the casual reader.

" The tenancy will end and can be replaced by a license. There's nothing 'wrong' with that. " - No there is nothing wrong with that. You're statement is correct, heres the fuller detail.

"The tenancy will lapse into a statutory periodic tenancy, unless you (the tenant) agrees to the changes. The LL will then need to issue a s.21 notice and go to court to conduct eviction process (in total 3-5 months). The tenancy doesnt miraculously end. In fact the only 3 ways to end a tenancy are:
The tenant hands notice and leaves
The tenant and landlord agree to end the tenancy
The Landlord goes to court to end the tenancy."

Clearly the OP isnt aware of this and so should be to make an educated decision.