Unfair tenancy agreements and agressive business conduct rampant

bourbon_biscuit

Hi,

Has anybody else noticed letting agents rampantly breaking the rules and being unfair to tenants?

I have observed all of the following from an overwhelming number of letting agents in the Cheshire area:

Office of Fair Trading 2005 Unfair terms in tenancy agreements:
3.50. Fixed charges for sending reminders for overdue rent at fixed intervals are unfair.
(agent seen charging £25+ each for sending letters at fixed intervals)
3.78. A tenant is not required to give notice to bring the tenancy to an end and the of the fixed term.
(this is a big one, agents will insist that you must give 1 or even 2 months notice tenants are foced into paying for a tenancy that they don't need!)

Property Redress Scheme resources page: Unfair Lettings Fees; a Guide for Agents and their Tenants
Tenant fees: The Agent should not seek to mislead Tenants or play upon their limited knowledge of legal rights and/or a lack of experience.
(Best example of this is tenants being asked "Are you moving out? No. Okay, when are you free to come to our office and sign a renewal?", missing out the key information that the tenant has a statutory right to stay in the property on a periodic tenancy and charging fees as high as £100 for the renewal)
Renewal fees: It may be an unfair term and aggressive practice to seek to charge a tenant to renew a tenancy where this fee was not set out in the original tenancy agreement.
(Have observed this happen, the agent says they will take the fee from the deposit anyway)
The tenant should be not charged any additional fee for holding over under a statutory peroidic tenancy or given the impression that they are obliged to agree to a new fixed term agreement.
(Have seen such a fee listed as chargeable by multiple agents)

My area has very little in the way of private landlords, so people have no option but to deal with these unfair agents.

What has the experience of other MSE users been? Have you had any luck with a redress scheme?

Currently, we were given the impression that a renewal must be signed. We have a letter and emails to another tenant in the same property that asks if we are moving out or signing a renewal. Now, we must move out 2 months early, have given 2 months notice of this and the agent has said they will charge a £270 fee for ending early and we can move out and cease paying rent if they find a tenant in time for our move-out.

Do we have a case at all that we have been treat unfairly and aggresively by the agent? If we were informed of our statutory right to a periodic tenancy, we would not be in the situation and could comfortably give the agent notice.

Thanks all

Miss_Samantha

I don't think you have a case.
You are also expected to consider your options yourselves before deciding on a course of actions.

bourbon_biscuit wrote: »

3.78. A tenant is not required to give notice to bring the tenancy to an end and the of the fixed term.

Yes and no.
If they mean 'fixed term tenancy' then that's correct.

Renewal fees: It may be an unfair term and aggressive practice to seek to charge a tenant to renew a tenancy where this fee was not set out in the original tenancy agreement.

This has no basis.
If you wish to 'renew' then the conditions are up for negotiation, including duration, rent and costs to setup the agreement.

bourbon_biscuit

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

You are also expected to consider your options yourselves before deciding on a course of actions.

If you wish to 'renew' then the conditions are up for negotiation, including duration, rent and costs to setup the agreement.

I can't post the link due to being a new member, but I am directly quoting the Property Redress Schemes guidance on unfair lettings fees. Our letting agent (and lots of others) are a member of this particular scheme. The section on renewal fees is as follows and directly contradicts what you are saying.

Renewal Fees
Where a Tenant wishes to remain in the property, they should not be charged any additional fee for holding over under a statutory periodic tenancy, or given the impression that they are obliged to agree to a new fixed term agreement.
It may be an unfair term and aggressive practice to seek to charge a tenant to renew a tenancy where this fee was not set out in the original tenancy agreement and brought to potential Tenants’ attention in the pre-tenancy advertising and other materials.
Introducing a new charge may take advantage of the tenant’s limited security of tenure – they
effectively have no choice about whether to pay the renewal fee if the alternative is to be given a Notice Requiring Possession.

Miss_Samantha

The Property Redress Scheme is not the law. Cynically, I would say that they have an agenda, being dependent on the government for their captive market.

The specific suggestion I commented on above has no basis in law. They probably know it, hence their use of 'may'.

'Renewing' means entering into a brand new contract. It is not something that either party has to do, and the terms for doing so are freely negotiable.

Let's say I hire a man with a van for a day. At the end of that day I decide that I will also need him the following day so I ask him about hiring him again.
He does not have to accept, and how could he have disclosed his conditions in advance? This just does not make sense on any level.

bourbon_biscuit

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Let's say I hire a man with a van for a day. At the end of that day I decide that I will also need him the following day so I ask him about hiring him again.
He does not have to accept, and how could he have disclosed his conditions in advance? This just does not make sense on any level.

While I agree with your other points, I don't think this is a comparable situation.
It is clear to both parties that the man is under no obligation to take the job seeing as he was never contracted for two days and he is fully in control of the binary decision to either take the job or not, which has no consequence to himself (since he will have planned accordinaly and can leave with no penalty or stay for reward) but has consequence to you (cause now you need to hire a new man)

It would be much more comparable if we added this:
The man+van company has a policy where they always stay as long as the client needs, provided they are made aware of the extended requirement before the job is officially completed. The driver decided to proceed with a 'job completion' form then leave without telling you this.

Where do you stand on this sitation? Should the driver have informed the customer of their rights? Do you blame the customer for not knowing their rights? Should the job sheet list the policy and drivers be required to explain it else face disciplinary action?

I am of the opinion that such things should require transparency and co-operation. While I am typically well researched on my rights, other people are less so (disabled, elderly, uneducated). I want to know what action tenants can take to get these letting agents to treat tenants with respect and empathy.

It's probably also worth noting that while the OP is written in the first person, it is not my own.

Miss_Samantha

This was an example to explain the point.

As said, the suggestion I commented on has no basis in law. I am not going to debate the (non-)issue.