Need someone to check over my tenancy agreement please.

eskimo26

I'm moving into a student house with an independent landlord, no letting agency.

Just want peace of mind that bits of the contract are standard practice, I can appreciate they cover all bases on these things but some of the clauses are scary or damn right bizarre.

6.3 The Licensor shall retain his or her own set of keys and the Licensor and any persons authorized by him or her may exercise their right to use these and obtain free entry to Room at any reasonable time

I thought they had to try obtain reasonable consent or give notice?

18. Moving to another room The Licensor can give written notice directing the Licensee to use another room. If such notice is given, the Licensee must remove his or her personal belongings to the new room within 24 hours and must leave the old room in a clean and tidy condition.

I found this a bit bizarre. Does it mean they can tell me I have to mve to another room with 24 hour notice at any time?

19.2 The Licensee agrees to pay the Licensor all costs and expenses (including VAT) incurred by the (including, but not limited to, the costs and fees of the ’s Solicitors and other professional advisers) in respect of;-
19.2 The Licensee agrees to pay the Licensor all costs and expenses (including VAT) incurred by the (including, but not limited to, the costs and fees of the ’s Solicitors and other professional advisers) in respect of;-
1. the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Agreement; and

2. the service of any notice relating to the breach by the Licensee of any of the Licensee’s obligations under this Agreement.

3. any proceedings arising from this Licence for recovery of sums of money due from the Licensee or otherwise will be conducted in court decided by the Licensor and the Licensee agrees that he will not make application to transfer any such proceedings to any other Court.

4. any summons served in proceedings pursuant to this Licence or otherwise is deemed served if sent to the Licensee’s or guarantor’s address on this document.

5. if the Licensee is absent from the room without notification for more than one week and/or is in arrears with payments, it will be entitled to deem that the Licensee has vacated the Room and terminated this Licence without notice.

6. any possessions of the Licensee remaining in the Room or otherwise on the property after termination of this Licence are deemed to have been abandoned by the Licensee and may be disposed after four weeks, without notice and defray any proceeds against outstanding arrears and/or costs of disposal.

7. the licensee agrees that should they default on this agreement the Licensee default be registered with a credit reference agency.

Found this a bit scary but I think it's fairly standard. Am I potentially liable to pay their costs if I sue them for breaking the law? I know these things rarely happen i'm just curious.

22. Check Out Inventory The cost of the inventory check out will be charged to the Licensee at the end of the Licence term.

This is worded like their is an admin. fee to pay whoever is doing the iventory check out but I think it means any costs from damage once inventory is taken which is fairly standard?

4. Guests and/or Visitors Guests and/or Visitors are not allowed to remain in the property on regular basis and stay overnight without prior permission. A fee of £50 per night will be charged in the event of any breach.

Again I think I might have seen this before so it is pretty standard? Can't say i'm impressed by it but I think they are covering themselves vs potential breaches of their insurance policy terms?

Would be appreciate someone knowledgeable just putting my mind to rest. Thanks.

marksoton

Put your trainers on and run for the hills!

Pixie5740

Is this England or Wales?

Will your landlord be living in the same property as you and share living space with you, or will the landlord live in the same building as you but not sharing living space?

G_M

The most worrying aspect of this is the repeated use of the term 'licencee'. If correctly used, this is not a tenancy agreement.

If you will genuinely be a licencee, not a tenant, you will have few rights and few protections.

Having said that, putting the word 'licencee' in the contract does not necessarily make you a licencee - it is the precise scenario of the property that determines whether you'll be a tenat or licencee. So

* what kind of property?
* how many occupnts?
* who is the landlord?
* where does the landlord live?
* will you share part of the property and/or facilities with the landlord?

eskimo26

G_M wrote: »

The most worrying aspect of this is the repeated use of the term 'licencee'. If correctly used, this is not a tenancy agreement.

If you will genuinely be a licencee, not a tenant, you will have few rights and few protections.

Having said that, putting the word 'licencee' in the contract does not necessarily make you a licencee - it is the precise scenario of the property that determines whether you'll be a tenant or licencee. So

* what kind of property?
* how many occupants?
* who is the landlord?
* where does the landlord live?
* will you share part of the property and/or facilities with the landlord?

Hi all,
this is a student let in a house.
6 people at the property.
The landlord does not live with us or in the building to my knowledge.
This is not a live-in landlord scenario.
It is in England, outer london.

I have not met the landlord, only the person managing the property for them. (Lets be honest though he may be the landlord.) He is knowledgeable about the business as I asked him questions about another property i'd viewed were the lettings agency claimed the landlord was not allowed to use locks on doors and he explained it is to do with some kind of special designation for the property that you pay the council for.

The landlord has several properties, I viewed rooms at 3 separate places and he may have more so this isn't an amateur set-up as far as I can tell. I viewed the properties 3 weeks apart as well.

As well as the license agreement I was sent a guarantor letter, a letsure tenancy assessment application form, consent to use personal information for residency checks form, a cover letter/offer letter with details of the tenancy and payments needed in advance which is the standard 1 month in advance and 4 weeks deposit. (including an admin. fee for some reason), bank details of the gentleman 'managing' the property.

He was recommended by the local letting agency who I used last year and who have close ties with the university. I also found him on spareroom (They win best lettings agency for students every year which doesn't say much tbh. They are a family run lettings agency and I found them reliable, friendly and efficient.)

I'm currently renting from an independent landlord atm with no issues.

I have not been provided with the fair usage policy though. [bills are inclusive.] I might check my current contract to compare since they are both independent landlords.

Thanks all I do have to commit soon as my room has been rented.

G_M

eskimo26 wrote: »

Hi all,
this is a student let in a house.
6 people at the property.
The landlord does not live with us or in the building to my knowledge.
This is not a live-in landlord scenario.
It is in England, outer london.
.

It does not sound as if you will be a licencee.

I assume each of the 6 occupants has their own contract - it is not a single contract with al 6 names on it, correct?

And you each have your on room, with 'exclusive occupation' of that room, and shared use of the rest of the property, yes?

You will be a tenant, not a licencee.

6.3 The Licensor shall retain his or her own set of keys and the Licensor and any persons authorized by him or her may exercise their right to use these and obtain free entry to Room at any reasonable time

I suspect this is an attempt by the landlord to alter your status from tenant to licencee. A 'tenant' has 'exclusive occupation' whereas a licencee does not. By claiming a right to enter your room the LL is trying to artificially remove your 'exclusive occupation'.

However the courts have consistantly ruled that an artificial attempt to change the status in this way is not valid. So
a) I believe you'll be a tenant
b) I believe that this clause would not be legally enforcible
c) it makes me suspicious of the landlord for attempting to get round the law in this way

As for the other clauses, I believe they, too, are all legally unenforcible and meaningless, except for the penultimate one - yes, you can be charged for the inventory check-out.

But a landlord who includes all these clauses is perhaps not a LL I'd want to do business with.

Even though a court would never enforce these clauses, the LL might try to pursuade you otherwise, and that might cause stress.

By the way - 6 separate 'households' (its a legal definition) makes this an HMO. Probobly one that requires licencing with the council.

Check the local council website eg

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/housing-and-community/private-housing/landlords/houses-multiple-occupation.html

eskimo26

G_M wrote: »

It does not sound as if you will be a licencee.

I assume each of the 6 occupants has their own contract - it is not a single contract with al 6 names on it, correct?

And you each have your on room, with 'exclusive occupation' of that room, and shared use of the rest of the property, yes?

You will be a tenant, not a licencee.

I suspect this is an attempt by the landlord to alter your status from tenant to licencee. A 'tenant' has 'exclusive occupation' whereas a licencee does not. By claiming a right to enter your room the LL is trying to artificially remove your 'exclusive occupation'.

However the courts have consistantly ruled that an artificial attempt to change the status in this way is not valid. So
a) I believe you'll be a tenant
b) I believe that this clause would not be legally enforcible
c) it makes me suspicious of the landlord for attempting to get round the law in this way

As for the other clauses, I believe they, too, are all legally unenforcible and meaningless, except for the penultimate one - yes, you can be charged for the inventory check-out.

But a landlord who includes all these clauses is perhaps not a LL I'd want to do business with.

Even though a court would never enforce these clauses, the LL might try to pursuade you otherwise, and that might cause stress.

By the way - 6 separate 'households' (its a legal definition) makes this an HMO. Probobly one that requires licencing with the council.

Check the local council website eg

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/housing-and-community/private-housing/landlords/houses-multiple-occupation.html

Thank you! I'll check his license but I think the discussion we had about the lack of locks on the other property I had visited that day was to do with the HMO license, he explained it to me and said the LL for that property was being stingy and trying to cut corners by not paying the council for it so i'm pretty sure he has not done that himself.

Regarding occupancy the contract says:

3. Sharing agreement- The Licensor permits the Licensee to occupy the Room:
Commencement Date, From and Including: ________________________________________________
Expiry Date, To and Including _

Then a bit about communal areas:

9. Amicable sharing
9.1 The Licensee shall use his or her best efforts to share the use of the Room and Property amicably and peaceable with the Licensor (and the Property with such other Licensees as the Licensor shall from time to time permit to use the Property). The Licensee shall not interfere with or otherwise obstruct such shared occupation in any way.
9.2 The Licensor and the Licensee will respect each other’s reasonable needs for privacy and decency. Neither part will exercise their rights of access to any room in any way that is likely to violate such reasonable needs. Nothing in this clause is intended to grant the licensee exclusive possession of the Room.

I think it may just be old or badly written? Is moving me from the room with 24 hours notice enforceable? This worries me the most tbh.

Also the £50 charge for having people stay overnight. Is he allowed to contractually forbid me to have people stay?

The funny thing is I discussed with him another property I saw that day were the letting agent told me it is forbidden to have anyone stay the night because insurance only covers the occupants. He said that was unreasonable and an occasional friend for a night or two is normal.

I remember a similar clause in my contract last year through a lettings agency and they said it gives them an easy out if boyfriends or girlfriends move in or start to stay the majority of the week and other flatmates complain but otherwise they are quite hands off. I got the impression this guy had a similar attitude, but is the £50 'fine' enforceable?

I think a lot of these are insurance against rare 'what-if' scenarios that occur once in a blue moon. I hope i'm right.

Getting a bit stressed now.

Thanks for all the help btw.

booksurr

in the old days students occupied halls of residence under "licence" not as a "tenant"

it sounds very much like your LL issuing very out of date wording which is utterly wrong in the context of a property occupied by students who use a room in an otherwise communally shared building where the LL is not resident. Everything about this "agreement" is just plain wrong. There are only 2 options where you live in a property which is occupied by multiple persons who share communal facilities: a) you are charged rent for a room and are liable only for that amount or b) you are "jointly and severally" liable for the rent on the whole building.

the reference to locks on rooms etc again hints at an out of date LL who does not really understand the HMO regulations as the ability to lock "your" room used to be a factor

there is no way you are a "licencee", you are not a lodger, therefore you can only be a tenant.

overall I'd say the clause about moving you to a different room is unenforceable - it may, for example, have been inspired by a university's (old) contract for a halls room where they could (in the past) do that for (emergency) maintenance reasons

a contract banning overnight visitors is a contractual clause that you agree to by signing it. There is no statutory basis for being allowed or not allowed to have overnight guests so enforcement of it would be a straightforward contractual dispute for resolution in court, if it came to that. In the meantime, yes you agreed to pay £50, but whether he tries to collect it is down to him....

G_M

booksurr wrote: »

.....

a contract banning overnight visitors is a contractual clause that you agree to by signing it. There is no statutory basis for being allowed or not allowed to have overnight guests so enforcement of it would be a straightforward contractual dispute for resolution in court, if it came to that. In the meantime, yes you agreed to pay £50, but whether he tries to collect it is down to him....

We often hear on the forum here about 'Quiet Enjoyment' - an implied contractual right which is over-relied on, usually in the context of acesss by a landlord.

I wonder if it would in fact apply here. Control of visitors, whether daytime or overnight, is quite possibly an enfringemnet of a tenant's right to Quiet Enjoyment of the property.

Of course as the LL is viewing this as a licencee agreement, not a tenancy, the clause is perfectly valid witin that context. But as I (& booksurr) both believe the courts would consider this a tenancy, QE would then apply, meaning the LL cannot unduly interfere with the tenant's free and unfettered enjoyment of the property.

But if you have another option, I would seek somewhere to live with a different landlord.

Guest101

Ben mentions this in his Friday message http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2016/11/18/ben-reeve-lewis-friday-newsround-274/?doing_wp_cron=1479469466.9247128963470458984375

eskimo26

Hi could I just drop him an email to say I'm confused by the wording as it is different to my current contract and could he please confirm if I would be a licensee or a tenant under the contract.

At least then I'd have it in writing, would that make a difference? My options are pretty slim tbh. Thanks guys.

Need to decide if I'm emailing soon as I'm running out of time.