Advice on renting and unreasonable clauses in the tenancy

Emanef

Hi all

I'm after some advice.

We're going to rent a property and the agent has sent us a draft of the tenancy. We have two cats, so they have put in a clause that states that after the tenancy ends, once the property has been returned we would be liable for two months should any infestation be found.

Now we don't expect there to be any infestation; our cats do not go out and we use flea treatment, etc on them. However, the owner does have dogs, and should they return to the property after us, or the property is let to anyone else after us with pets, we could effectively be held responsible for any issues caused by them just because it occurred within two months of us moving out.

I have asked the agents to remove this clause. They have said they have had experience of it in the past and that's why they added it, and they have to protect the landlord and any future occupant.

That seems crazy to me; what about protecting us equally?!

I have put it to them that the inventory checkout and the subsequent time allowed for them to return the deposit should be sufficient time for them to establish any issues, and I do not see how we can possibly be liable for any issues once the property has been returned and the deposit refunded.

Is such a clause legally enforceable for such a long period after a tenancy has ended?!

How would be best to respond? We have always left properties in excellent condition (sometimes better than we took them!) so do not envisage any problems caused by us, but we do not want to be leaving ourselves responsible for issues caused by other people and out of our control.

Thanks

HappyMJ

Emanef wrote: »

Hi all

I'm after some advice.

We're going to rent a property and the agent has sent us a draft of the tenancy. We have two cats, so they have put in a clause that states that after the tenancy ends, once the property has been returned we would be liable for two months should any infestation be found.

Now we don't expect there to be any infestation; our cats do not go out and we use flea treatment, etc on them. However, the owner does have dogs, and should they return to the property after us, or the property is let to anyone else after us with pets, we could effectively be held responsible for any issues caused by them just because it occurred within two months of us moving out.

I have asked the agents to remove this clause. They have said they have had experience of it in the past and that's why they added it, and they have to protect the landlord and any future occupant.

That seems crazy to me; what about protecting us equally?!

I have put it to them that the inventory checkout and the subsequent time allowed for them to return the deposit should be sufficient time for them to establish any issues, and I do not see how we can possibly be liable for any issues once the property has been returned and the deposit refunded.

Is such a clause legally enforceable?!

How would be best to respond? We have always left properties in excellent condition (sometimes better than we took them!) so do not envisage any problems caused by us, but we do not want to be leaving ourselves responsible for issues caused by other people and out of our control.

Thanks

I'd just leave it. They could take you to court to try and convince the court that your should pay but the expense involved probably wouldn't be worth it. They would need to provide proof there is an infestation. The odd flea here and there isn't going to be an infestation. So...whilst enforceable it's unlikely to be enforced.

Guest101

I'd say that such a clause may be enforceable, but with a caveat, as it would have to be carefully worded.


Typically you are not bound by the terms of a contract, once the contract ends.

Emanef

Thanks for the replies guys. Thankfully the landlord has agreed to remove it, says whilst they think it would be enforcable they agree it would be very difficult to prove it was caused by us.

Thanks again

Miss_Samantha

If they were thorough they would have a clause to make you pay for a flea treatment in any case once you have left.

Emanef

We pay for flea treatment all the time, it's called Frontline. We've never had an issue with fleas, not sure why we'd need to put chemicals on their carpets if there are no fleas.

The landlord is living there until we move in, and has a dog. That's more likely to have fleas as they take it out every day. They didn't think to offer us that same protection.

Anyway, no longer an issue, thankfully.

G_M

Personally I'd insist on professional treatment at tenant's cost at the end of the tenancy.

I'm sure that, as you say, you treat your cats regularly, they don't go out, etc et, but the landlord as no guarantee of that

And once you've gone, and new tenants move in and complain of fleas, liability falls on him to resolve.

suki1964

Tbh, if your cats don't go out, I'd prefer a tin of indorex and treat the house twice a year rather then frontlining the cats

Seriously, I have a dog and I use a house spray twice a year JIC rather then giving toxic drugs to him every month

Never seen a flea in over ten years since I done this

Emanef

Thanks Suki, that sounds sensible. We're looking to buy a house long term and will let them out then if it's away from busy road, but we won't here so that's probably a better idea.

I may actually get one straight away and give it a blast before we move in, as the owner as dogs!