Tenancy Agreement Clauses

Guest101

segedunum wrote: »

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


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.


: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.

No offence, but you're not quite right, but you're not quite wrong.


The area is complicated and whilst yes you know someone that called the police and the police correctly and quite rightly removed the LL.


They did so on the basis of A:
To prevent a breach of the peace - which is right
and B:
That the police are now much more savvy about tenancies and know that failing to assist when it could be an illegal eviction can land them with hefty lawsuits.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

Not for a standard, undefended s.21 it's £215 (though being

Why are you talking about an undefended accelerated procedure case when we are discussing a defended case?

Anyway, again well played to OP who managed to create a nice MSE thread with his wind-up.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Why are you talking about an undefended accelerated procedure case when we are discussing a defended case?

Anyway, again well played to OP who managed to create a nice MSE thread with his wind-up.

True, and a defended case could have additional fees, you're totally correct. (though costs are always at judges discretion)


But changing locks and not defending would have the same fees


And I hope you can concede that £7.5k in fees is a very extreme example and not typical of what courts costs are in such matters


No-one so far has said defend this in court. So your point was to raise awareness of the case - which I agree is important, as tenants should know it's possible to be landed with this, but also understand why it happened.


No point scaring people into thinking if they don't leave at end of s.21 they'll be landed with £7.5k in costs.

Miss_Samantha

You really don't get it, do you?

This was an example to show that legal disputes's costs escalate quickly. Those who are deluded in thinking that ignoring and breaching clauses of their tenancy (or to ignore possession notices, or that it's OK because costs are at the judge's discretion) are in for a rude awakening one day or another.

Guest101 wrote: »

No point scaring people into thinking if they don't leave at end of s.21 they'll be landed with £7.5k in costs.

I'm trying to bring some sense.
If you defend possession proceedings, budget no less than £1000 in case you lose, as that's a reasonable figure if the landlord is using a solicitor/barrister.
If you breach your tenancy you should keep in mind that you might be in for a similar treat.

HappyMJ

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

You really don't get it, do you?

This was an example to show that legal disputes's costs escalate quickly. Those who are deluded in thinking that ignoring and breaching clauses of their tenancy (or to ignore possession notices, or that it's OK because costs are at the judge's discretion) are in for a rude awakening one day or another.

I get it..but I won't be defending a Section 21 notice where the notice is valid, the deposit protected etc... there's no point. I'll find somewhere else to live. Any action is just going to delay the inevitable. Surely tenants know that.....

If I've breached the tenancy conditions in the last month of the tenancy then really what landlord is going to issue a section 8 notice requiring possession when possession is going to given up in a few weeks anyway. It's pointless. I'm leaving so the notice can be ignored. There would be no point defending it.

If I've breached the tenancy conditions during the fixed term of tenancy it's much easier for the LL to just wait until the 4th month and issue a Section 21 notice requiring possession on the last day of the fixed term of the tenancy agreement and then make good any damage to the property once the tenant has left. What damage could my three pets really do anyway? During an inspection the Letting Agent just said they're cute and moved on despite the tenancy being breached by not notifying them I have pets before the tenancy started. I doubt the LL even knows I have pets.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

You really don't get it, do you?

This was an example to show that legal disputes's costs escalate quickly. Those who are deluded in thinking that ignoring and breaching clauses of their tenancy (or to ignore possession notices, or that it's OK because costs are at the judge's discretion) are in for a rude awakening one day or another.



I'm trying to bring some sense.
If you defend possession proceedings, budget no less than £1000 in case you lose, as that's a reasonable figure if the landlord is using a solicitor/barrister.
If you breach your tenancy you should keep in mind that you might be in for a similar treat.

Assuming a judge allows costs for a solicitor / barrister - as typically this would not be a reasonable expense.

benjus

segedunum wrote: »

I'm sorry to burst a lot of very wishful landlords' bubbles around here, but unless a tenant gives explicit permission or you have a court order allowing you to enter then the legal system is very clear what side it is on.

If you'd like to test this, by all means enter a property without explicit permission and then see what happens when a clued up tenant gets evidence and goes to the police. You *will* end up with a criminal record regardless of what it says on the tenancy agreement.

Tenancy agreements cannot be used to remove rights.

In that case, what do you make of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985:

8 (2): The landlord, or a person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day, on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the tenant or occupier, enter premises to which this section applies for the purpose of viewing their state and condition.

That clearly contradicts your statement about "explicit permission" and court orders.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

Assuming a judge allows costs for a solicitor / barrister - as typically this would not be a reasonable expense.

Wishful thinking, again!

Having legal counsel to conduct legal proceedings is normal. Resulting costs are normal and a reasonable expense.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Wishful thinking, again!

Having legal counsel to conduct legal proceedings is normal. Resulting costs are normal and a reasonable expense.

Only when it is reasonably required.


Remember that the claimant must mitigate costs where possible. For a straight forward s.21 possession a solicitor is not required.

HappyMJ

benjus wrote: »

In that case, what do you make of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985:



That clearly contradicts your statement about "explicit permission" and court orders.

What tenancy is that really going to apply to...

8
(3)This section applies to a contract if—
(a)the rent does not exceed the figure applicable in accordance with the subsection (4), ...
(4)The rent limit for the application of this section is shown by the following Table, by reference to the date of making of the contract and the situation of the premises:

On or after 6th July 1957. In London: £80. Elsewhere: £52.

And that's monthly rent....