Tenancy agreement and water bills

Guest101

LadyDee wrote: »

Sorry, I might not have made it clear, that my understanding is that a written contract/agreement can only be legally varied in writing. A verbal variation of written terms could not be relied on in law in the event of a dispute. I'm relying on memory here and my understanding in my work experience.

The OP will be given different responses, some based on what should be fair, and of course it would be nice if the landlord acknowledged there had been a mistake and agreed to repay the money. It's all very well to say the girl friend should have read the terms of the agreement, but so should the landlord!

I suspect this could have been just a standard form of tenancy agreement, perhaps drawn up by a managing agent, or the landlord printed it off from the internet, and neither party really read it properly.

I understood what you meant and I hope I'm clear when I say that in law - it is absolutely possible for any contract, written or otherwise, to be varied by mutual consent. That consent can be verbal. It would be prudent to get any variation in writing to avoid disagreements down the line. But perfectly legal to have a verbal variation, as long as both parties agree.

thesaint

LadyDee wrote: »

Sorry, I might not have made it clear, that my understanding is that a written contract/agreement can only be legally varied in writing. A verbal variation of written terms could not be relied on in law in the event of a dispute. I'm relying on memory here and my understanding in my work experience.

In fairness, this is completely different to what you said earlier.

TheLuckiest

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

I gave you the legal position as I see it, but it sounds like a mistake in the drafting which your GF was unaware of and was happy with the last four years of renting on the basis of paying the water bill as most tenants do. Turning around now and demanding they pay for it would be pretty low in my opinion unless the LL had shafted you in some other way.

When you bring it up with the LL and they say, "whoops, I forgot to remove that when I moved out, but you were happy to transfer the account to your name, so what's changed" what is your reply?

I might actually change my initial opinion based upon the new information as since your GF must have taken some action to put the bill in her own name, and then paid it without complaint for four years, that gives credence to the argument that the original clause was a drafting mistake and should be dis-regarded.

What new information?

Can a statement that was in a contract signed by both parties be disregarded just because it was overlooked?

Nobbie1967

TheLuckiest wrote: »

What new information?

Can a statement that was in a contract signed by both parties be disregarded just because it was overlooked?

Yes,

If it was an obvious mistake. If there was a typo in the agreement so the rent was £800k/month rather than £800/month and you both signed it without noticing, a court is not going to order you to pay £800k a month since it is clearly a mistake and there is case law to support this. The argument you will have is over whether it was an obvious mistake. The new information you provided was that the LL previously lived at the address which gives a number of scenarios as to why they would pay the water bill in those circumstances, which would not apply once they have moved out. This would all form part of the evidence in any court case.

TheLuckiest

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

Yes,

If it was an obvious mistake. If there was a typo in the agreement so the rent was £800k/month rather than £800/month and you both signed it without noticing, a court is not going to order you to pay £800k a month since it is clearly a mistake and there is case law to support this. The argument you will have is over whether it was an obvious mistake. The new information you provided was that the LL previously lived at the address which gives a number of scenarios as to why they would pay the water bill in those circumstances, which would not apply once they have moved out. This would all form part of the evidence in any court case.

I see what you mean, but that example would be an obvious error. It wouldn't be that unusual for a landlord to pay water rates. In this case the landlord either didn't read their own agreement or knows they're responsible but have been keeping quiet about it.

It's largely academic as I can't see it going down the legal route. We'll have a word with the LL and see what the reaction is. If she wasn't aware of it she'll be glad to know so she can change the wording for her next tenants.

thesaint

TheLuckiest wrote: »

It wouldn't be that unusual for a landlord to pay water rates.

It would.
I have never known a landlord to pay the water rates unless the house is being shared, or the bill covers more than one property.

Miss_Samantha

TheLuckiest,

It does look like a mistake by the landlord whether the clause is binding or not, and it is not unfair that your girlfriend pay the water bill. Indeed, she has been paying it without complaint and probably following an understanding with her landlord when the landlord moved out.

To top it up, you said that your girlfriend and her landlord had a good relation.

Therefore, you seem to have smelled gold and are trying to stir things up to get to it.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to behave kindly instead of like a <...>: Your girlfriend paid for the water she used and no-one was disadvantaged.

G_M

There are two possibilities of what happened when the landlord moved out and the lodger became tenant. The LL created a tenancy agreement and

1) made a genuine mistake. Her previous 'lodger agreement' included water with the rent and she simply made an error and left that in the new agreement

2) intended the rent to include water, but then forgot and did not pay the water charges. Or deliberately chose to not pay. Both unlikely but possible.

Either way, the tenant appears to have been perfectly happy to pay the water charges, and clearly considered this to be fair throughout the tenancy.

The tenant has the option of making a claim. As has been discussed by others, there is no guarantee of which way a court would rule if it went that far, but the tenant could risk the court costs in the hope/expectation of getting both water charges and court costs back.

Whether that gamble is worth taking is a personal decision for the OP.

The moral issue is different, and I think summed up by my 'Either way..." statement above.

TheLuckiest

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

TheLuckiest,

It does look like a mistake by the landlord whether the clause is binding or not, and it is not unfair that your girlfriend pay the water bill. Indeed, she has been paying it without complaint and probably following an understanding with her landlord when the landlord moved out.

To top it up, you said that your girlfriend and her landlord had a good relation.

Therefore, you seem to have smelled gold and are trying to stir things up to get to it.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to behave kindly instead of like a <...>: Your girlfriend paid for the water she used and no-one was disadvantaged.

With all due respect if it was about the money then I'd be pushing the legal route. It won't come to that. There'll be no demands and no pressure put on the LL.

It may be a mistake by the LL, it may not. If we didn't know the LL I'd be inclined to think they were trying it on and had been keeping quiet the last few years. Maybe she has kept quiet the whole time despite the fact she knows my gf?

We're going to bring the point up to the LL and see what is said.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

TheLuckiest,

It does look like a mistake by the landlord whether the clause is binding or not, and it is not unfair that your girlfriend pay the water bill. Indeed, she has been paying it without complaint and probably following an understanding with her landlord when the landlord moved out.

To top it up, you said that your girlfriend and her landlord had a good relation.

Therefore, you seem to have smelled gold and are trying to stir things up to get to it.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to behave kindly instead of like a <...>: Your girlfriend paid for the water she used and no-one was disadvantaged.

To be fair the rent could have been set to include the water rates, so whilst happy to pay, the GF may have been paying over market rate.


None of which is unlawful, but surely that dampens the otherwise good relationship