Tenancy Agreement Clauses

segedunum

I've got my tenancy agreement, and by and large it's got all the usual stuff in. Nothing excessive like cleaning the showerhead every day with a recommended cleaner.

However, a couple of clauses jumped out at me. The first one was allowing visits with 24 hour notice within the last two months of the tenancy. I've seen agreements with clauses for visits within the last month of the tenancy, but not two.

Legally, of course, these 'visit' clauses mean absolutely nothing. A shocking number of landlords and agents simply have no idea that for the duration of the tenancy the space within the property is simply not theirs to occupy without explicit invitation or court order. I'm willing to be accommodating within the last month of the tenancy though if I get along OK with the landlord, and he does seem reasonable.

The second is the inclusion of a £72.00 inventory fee, which I find excessive given I've laid out £400 in fees so far. The landlord is handling the rent and upkeep of the property so this really has nothing to do with the letting agency, who simply handled marketing, viewings and background checks. My contract is with the landlord, not the letting agency.

Should I just raise these things with the landlord and hash them out, because as I can see the letting agent isn't involved now? What has been peoples' experiences with these kinds of clauses and backing out of additional fees such as inventory?

FBaby

Good luck! Even if the landlord has taken over, it might very well be that they would approach an agent to do the inventory rather than themselves (especially if they live far away), so that would come with a cost, and £72 although extortionate is probably the going fee.

As for the two months visits rather than one, does it really make that much of a difference?

Do go ahead and raise these if you wish, but if you have already signed it, you are likely to label yourself as a trouble maker and get the landlord on their guards from the start, which could result in them being less than flexible when you will want them to be.

Your choice though.

Miss_Samantha

segedunum wrote: »

Legally, of course, these 'visit' clauses mean absolutely nothing. A shocking number of landlords and agents simply have no idea that for the duration of the tenancy the space within the property is simply not theirs to occupy without explicit invitation or court order.

That's incorrect.
As long as a clause for access is reasonable then it is valid and you are not legally entitled to refuse access, and the landlord does nothing 'wrong' by accessing the property pursuant to the clause.

theartfullodger

For a very long discussion on landlord's rights of access for viewing or inspection see..
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?26589-L-s-right-of-access-for-inspection-or-viewing

& on unfair clauses in general, including over visits, see...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-terms-in-tenancy-agreements--2

Suffice to say the refusal of access is not simple, and of course tenants are entitled under some circumstances to refuse access, entirely legally (I am a landlord..).

You & the landlord can agree or modify such clauses as you agree prior to you moving in. I doubt landlord will budge much assuming rented properties are in high demand in your area.

You can decline to provide access after moving in, then you should expect s21 & eventually eviction from most landlords: (Were I as a landlord to be refused access I would wonder about brothel or 'nabis farm..). Life ain't fair.

Perhaps Engerland should follow Scotland's lead on housing legislation (again**) and get rid of s21, as the Scottish government are doing with Scots equivalent of s21 with the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill 2015, soon to be an Act when Betty signs it.
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?73142-The-Private-Housing-(Tenancies)-(Scotland)-Bill-2015-completes-Holyrood-process

** Again? England has led in some housing areas, Scotland in others: Notably Leases Act 1449 & HMO legislation after particularly nasty fatal fire in Glasgow.

Guest101

The clauses may be valid in theory, I actually agree to some degree.

But with caveats:
1: need a clear definition of last 2 months- tenant presumably still gives 1 month notice to end tenancy so it seems irrelevant.
- landlords notice doesn't end the tenancy, so where does the 2 months start?

2: both parties have valid legal arguments, ultimately a LL needs to go to court to enforce his. A tenant can just change the locks.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

1: need a clear definition of last 2 months- tenant presumably still gives 1 month notice to end tenancy so it seems irrelevant.
- landlords notice doesn't end the tenancy, so where does the 2 months start?

"The last 2 months of the tenancy". I don't know how to make it clearer.

Guest101 wrote: »

2: both parties have valid legal arguments, ultimately a LL needs to go to court to enforce his. A tenant can just change the locks.

They don't both have valid arguments.
What you are saying about changing the lock is the same as saying that someone can break the law. Sure they can, but they may not.
A tenant can change the locks and prevent access, but she may not.

HappyMJ

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

That's incorrect.
As long as a clause for access is reasonable then it is valid and you are not legally entitled to refuse access, and the landlord does nothing 'wrong' by accessing the property pursuant to the clause.

"Legally" but it's not a criminal offence. It's civil and for the landlord to enforce this clause they must go to court. That's going to take a hell of a lot longer than 2 months and by that time the tenant has gone and possession has been returned so therefore no point enforcing the clause.

24 hours notice in writing can be at any time during the tenancy. It doesn't even need to be in the last 2 months but if the landlord turns up after having given written notice and finds they can't get in then what really is a landlord really going to do.

So the OP is correct is saying "Legally these clauses mean absolutely nothing".

Personally I would just leave the poor terms in the tenancy agreement knowing they will never be enforced in court. No damages can be claimed by the LL if access is refused so I would just leave it. As the OP says if the LL has been accommodating during the tenancy then I'll happily allow access as well but if they aren't then I will find another property to live in and refuse all access requests.

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

"The last 2 months of the tenancy". I don't know how to make it clearer.



They don't both have valid arguments.
What you are saying about changing the lock is the same as saying that someone can break the law. Sure they can, but they may not.
A tenant can change the locks and prevent access, but she may not.

There is a big difference between criminal law and civil law.

Miss_Samantha

HappyMJ wrote: »

So the OP is correct is saying "Legally these clauses mean absolutely nothing".

Clearly, that's not the case.

Such clause is actually standard, or should be, and is important: Without such an explicit clause the landlord has indeed no right to access the property to show it to potential new tenants.

The fact that many landlords do not either enforce such clause, or seek compensation for breaches does not mean that a tenant who thought it was fine to ignore the clause "because MSE said so" could not end up being liable for thousands of pounds in compensation and legal costs.

HappyMJ wrote: »

There is a big difference between criminal law and civil law.

Obviously not in the sense that they both state what you may not do. The difference is the consequences of a breach.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

"The last 2 months of the tenancy". I don't know how to make it clearer.



They don't both have valid arguments.
What you are saying about changing the lock is the same as saying that someone can break the law. Sure they can, but they may not.
A tenant can change the locks and prevent access, but she may not.

So we need to define the LAST 2 months of the tenancy. Is that the last two months of fixed term? Could be redundant. The tenant might stay on.

When LL gives notice? Well that's not necessarily the last two months?

When tenant gives notice? Poor if the tenant only needs to give 1 months notice.

As for comparing it to breaking the law, which law? A tenant has rights to quiet enjoyment, perfectly valid legal point. Taking steps to ensure those rights is perfectly reasonable.

And changing the locks in of itself is not a matter for stature as much as possibly breaching a term in the tenancy.

The LL can then quantify their, minimised, loss, or evict under s21 or g12 ( need to check which ground it is so may edit this ) or both of course.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

So we need to define the LAST 2 months of the tenancy.

I repeat: How clearer could it be?

Guest101 wrote: »

As for comparing it to breaking the law, which law? A tenant has rights to quiet enjoyment, perfectly valid legal point. Taking steps to ensure those rights is perfectly reasonable.

Yes, there is a covenant of quiet enjoyment, and has exclusive possession. Hence the need of an explicit right of access and my use of the term 'reasonable' in my first post as the right of access must not be excessive because of this.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

I repeat: How clearer could it be?



Yes, there is a covenant of quiet enjoyment, and has exclusive possession. Hence the need of an explicit right of access and my use of the term 'reasonable' in my first post as the right of access must not be excessive because of this.

Well I've given you 3 choices, you could pick the one you mean, or offer a 4th alternative.


to clarify, you know exactly what I'm getting at.


1: S.21 does not end a tenancy and that period may not therefore be the LAST 2 months of the tenancy, as the tenancy continues
2: last two months of fixed term, could be relevant, or the tenant (as many do) could stay on
3: the tenant doesn't give two months notice, so why last two months?


I wasn't even saying it wasn't reasonable. I was agreeing with you that in theory it's valid. I'm pointing out that it's worded badly.