Incorrect wording in Tenancy agreement

davidmcn

sungazer65 wrote: »

They have been in the house 7 months

Like your subject line says, it seems that it's just incorrect wording in the contract. All the other evidence points towards the parties having agreed that the tenants would be responsible for the utilities, given that's what they've been doing for seven months.

sungazer65

Booked in to see a solicitor today see what they have to say
Thanks all

Comms69

sungazer65 wrote: »

I do know the solicitor on behalf of the student that left did say the contract for utilities is in breach of the landlords contract what that means exactly I don’t know
They were told they had to sign a contract for utilities to get these up and running and get themselves registered as living there

registered with whom?


There is no central registry, beyond the electoral roll.

Jumblebumble

davidmcn wrote: »

Like your subject line says, it seems that it's just incorrect wording in the contract. All the other evidence points towards the parties having agreed that the tenants would be responsible for the utilities, given that's what they've been doing for seven months.

I fail to see any evidence whatsoever beyond a bit of naive behaviour by the tenants who seem to have been misled by talk of non existant registrations
The solicitor above seems to agree with me that the Landlord in in breach
Fortunately the OP is going to get advice from a properly qualified solicitor and in my view should ignore the unqualified.
It will be interesting to see who is right.
A contract is a contract

G_M

Jumblebumble wrote: »

....
It will be interesting to see who is right.
A contract is a contract

If this matter had been raised when the tenants were first asked to set up utility accounts, I'd agree wholeheartedly.


But contracts can be varied by mutual consent.


Arguably, the landlord requested a variation when he asked the tenants to take on the utilitiy contracts, and by doing so, the tenants agreed,.....

Comms69

Jumblebumble wrote: »

I fail to see any evidence whatsoever beyond a bit of naive behaviour by the tenants who seem to have been misled by talk of non existant registrations
The solicitor above seems to agree with me that the Landlord in in breach
Fortunately the OP is going to get advice from a properly qualified solicitor and in my view should ignore the unqualified.
It will be interesting to see who is right.
A contract is a contract

I suspect that your opinion is worth much less than even the naïve tenants on this matter.


Contracts can be varied by mutual consent. Which sounds like what happened here