Tenancy Agreement Clauses

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Oh boy...

I think the landlord should be the one running at this point.

If he doesn't understand this then he's getting a criminal record at some point - not from me though as I'll have bailed.

This is very, *very* dangerous advice you're trying to peddle.

Miss_Samantha

I think you are the one peddling wishful thinking at the moment.

I wish you future landlord (and her agent) good luck.

Edit:

segedunum wrote: »

There's even a clause in my agreement saying that if a court finds any clauses in there void the rest of it still applies! You don't have to be a lawyer to see that it's a joke legally.

Ah, this thread is a wind-up!
Well played, I fell for it.

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

I don't think you should use this condescending tone on a topic that you very clearly do not know enough to comment on.

I'm a tenant potentially paying money to rent somewhere to a landlord who perhaps doesn't understand what rights of access he actually has. That's a worry. I'm entitled to be condescending, especially with those who are putting themselves at risk of getting arrested.

It is also puzzling that you seem to think that an explicit clause stating that you give your landlord a right of access is not "explicit permission'.

The law is very, *very* clear. Nothing in a tenancy agreement overrides existing rights.

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Ah, this thread is a wind-up!
Well played, I fell for it.

You certainly are. Let me know how the porridge is because that's where you're ending up.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Really?

As an example, how much do you think a tenant could have to pay if he defends a s.21 or s.8 and lose?

If you think of quoting the piece on Landlord Law Blog about £7.5k in fees, think on. The tenancy was from 21 years ago and clearly the case was on a legal point - probably assured tenancy vs AST.


Typical fees are in the region of £2-300

segedunum

theartfullodger wrote: »

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..).

It's very simple actually. I've seen it happen when a tenant has called the police because a landlord has entered.

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.

Nope, the law is very clear and you're simply water muddying waters here. It's amazing and a little worrying how much landlords and agents don't know, and therein lies my worry.

I doubt landlord will budge much assuming rented properties are in high demand in your area.

:rotfl: Forgive me if I take this with a pinch of salt. I know fine well what's available in my area thank you.

I'll hash it out with the landlord. If I'm not happy, which I'm certainly not after reading this thread, I'll walk. It means potentially losing my upfront fee, but better now than hassle later.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

If you think of quoting the piece on Landlord Law Blog about £7.5k in fees, think on. The tenancy was from 21 years ago and clearly the case was on a legal point - probably assured tenancy vs AST.

Typical fees are in the region of £2-300

Yes I was thinking of quoting that case because it shows how deluded you and others are on these issues.
Just court and legal costs for a single hearing can add up to £1000.

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

If this was the case any clauses could be put into a contract allowing all sorts of access. There's even a clause in my agreement saying that if a court finds any clauses in there void the rest of it still applies! You don't have to be a lawyer to see that it's a joke legally.

Ah, this thread is a wind-up!
Well played, I fell for it.

My point here being that the clause in question is obviously in there because they know a great deal of it is legally unenforceable.

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Yes I was thinking of quoting that case because it shows how deluded you and others are on these issues.
Just court and legal costs for a single hearing can add up to £1000.

I'm afraid trying to scare people over this for your own ends ain't going to help I'm afraid.

I've found out what I need to know..........

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Yes I was thinking of quoting that case because it shows how deluded you and others are on these issues.
Just court and legal costs for a single hearing can add up to £1000.

Not for a standard, undefended s.21 it's £215 (though being new F Year it's likely gone up) you and I both know this. Perhaps upto £95 in costs.


- hence 2-300


You and I both know that case was on a legal point, completely out of proportion to typical fees. (though atleast we were on the same wavelength - which to some degree we were on the principal of the clause)