Change of sharer "reasonable costs"

confused_renter

I'm under a tenancy subject to the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Two of our tenants are moving out, on two dates later this later. We have found replacements for both and are happy to manage deposit swaps ourselves. Having presented this to our estate agent they are asking for £250 for the two changes. (£125 each, £50 for the change, £75 for a mandatory smoke alarm test).

The tenant fees act suggests the following in the guidance for landlords:

Where a tenant requests a change to the tenancy agreement (e.g. a change of sharer or permission to keep pets on the property) you are entitled to charge up to £50 for the work involved in amending the tenancy agreement or the amount of your reasonable costs if they are higher.

It also provides a single example of what might be considered unreasonable in the guide for tenants section:

Q. I have found a suitable replacement tenant, can the landlord or agent still
charge more than £50 for a change of sharer fee?
It is unlikely that a landlord or agent could justify charging a fee above £50 in this
circumstance. The costs involved in referencing the replacement tenant, re-issuing
the tenancy agreement and protecting the tenancy deposit should be small.

It seems to me that this is unreasonable - we found both replacement tenants, have told them well in advance, and the landlord is happy with the arrangement - but, aside from the (relevant) example in the Guidance for Tenants document, I can't find any case law (perhaps understandably as this is fairly new) nor other examples to lend weight to my feeling so we're left with a sort of back and forth ("This is reasonable", "No it isn't").

I wonder, can someone give me some advice on this? Is this £125 (rather than £50) cost typical and reasonable? Is this just a disguised attempt to put costs for which tenants are not liable (smoke alarm tests) onto us? Are there any examples of pieces of case law that I've missed?

Thanks

davidmcn

What on earth has testing the smoke alarm got to do with the change of tenants, and why would tenants be paying for it anyway? (and £75 to poke at the test button with a broom handle? £75 would pay for several new smoke alarms...)

saajan_12

confused_renter wrote: »

I'm under a tenancy subject to the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Two of our tenants are moving out, on two dates later this later. We have found replacements for both and are happy to manage deposit swaps ourselves. Having presented this to our estate agent they are asking for £250 for the two changes. (£125 each, £50 for the change, £75 for a mandatory smoke alarm test).

When did your tenancy start? If before 1st June 2019, then you can still be charged pre-agreed fees until 31st May 2020.

If after 1st June, how are you already looking to alter the tenants less than 2 months in? I'm not surprised the EAs are less than sympathetic. In any case, the smoke alarm test twice in a few days is probably a bit much, but costs to check right to rent, reference, amend tenancy agreement, time to get them signed, etc and you won't get much change for their charge.

need_an_answer

davidmcn wrote: »

What on earth has testing the smoke alarm got to do with the change of tenants, and why would tenants be paying for it anyway? (and £75 to poke at the test button with a broom handle? £75 would pay for several new smoke alarms...)

I believe you may need to prove that when a tenant moves into a property that the smoke alarms have been tested and are in working order.

Having said that it does seem that this is an excessive charge for what is a simple job.

Me thinks that this particular letting agent may be trying to charge for a "service" which should be paid for by the LL but dressing it up as a tenant expense because its the previous tenants that are choosing to vacate rather than the natural end of a tenancy agreed by the LL.

confused_renter

Thanks for the replies.

When did your tenancy start? If before 1st June 2019, then you can still be charged pre-agreed fees until 31st May 2020.

If after 1st June, how are you already looking to alter the tenants less than 2 months in? I'm not surprised the EAs are less than sympathetic. In any case, the smoke alarm test twice in a few days is probably a bit much, but costs to check right to rent, reference, amend tenancy agreement, time to get them signed, etc and you won't get much change for their charge.

Original tenancy has run for 2 years and has hit renewal date. All of us want to stay for a few more months, at which point the two changers want to change and the rest of the current tenants will stay (for 1-2 more years). This has all been made clear up front to the LL and EA, we haven't sprung the change on them after the fact so I can't really see that they ought to be sympathetic

My question is really around the law and what is 'reasonable'. If the smoke alarm test is a legal requirement then all such changes would incur this and presumably it should be factored into the standard cost (<=£50). That this sort of change of sharer (where we have found the new tenants and given plenty of notice) should really be the most straightforward and cheapest, why is it costing 250% of the maximum fee?

need_an_answer

To put the smoke alarm test into context for you...as a LL I am required to test the alarms when a new tenant moves in and document it.

I go in the night before changeover read the meters test the alarms and document that the meter reading was xxxx on specific date and on the inventory document alarms tested and working again with the date.

That is what is required now it takes me maybe an hour as part of the general walkthrough of the inventory and property(and I'm being generous on the time)...I guess an agent could even get the inventory clerk to document and test the alarms..its not even something that requires an electrician...unless you're really pushing it...

The charge is extortionate and certainly doesn't warrant £75....I have no idea to whom you would raise a claim for an unreasonable fee but in your shoes,or those of your new housemates I would certainly look into it...I'm not suggesting that no fee should be paid but I do agree that the fee quoted could be deemed unreasonable for the level of work involved.