Periodic Renewal Clause

Lokolo

buggy_boy wrote: »

I agree there is no definitive answer... I would simply state that if what G_M is true then why out of millions of tenants that have paid these charges in the past has nobody challenged this creating a precedent giving a definitive answer?

Who are these millions of people?

Majority, including my tenants and myself as a landlord, only get charged if they want to renew to a new fixed term contract. Going onto periodic has no additional charge.

This is quite similar on these boards where people are charged for a new fixed term. A small minority, including this person, are being charged for something that will happen regardless.

buggy_boy wrote: »

- Eviction - You are wrong Section 8 would unlikely be used, more likely section 21 would be issued, Section 8 would rely on a judges decision, section 21 would mean the tenant would not be able to put up a defence so eviction is a possibility.

This would need to be decided by the landlord, not the letting agent. Not paying the fee that only the letting agents get the benefit of, will unlikely mean the LL will issue it at all. Not saying it's impossible, but unlikely.

buggy_boy

G_M wrote: »

In 2009, the OFT got a High Court ruling against Foxtons, that

https://www.property118.com/legality-renewal-fees-periodic-tenancies/


Unfortunately the OFT no longer exists, but the case law does.

That case relates to charges to landlords, in it if you read the article it states it is about the fees no being clear and a charge being made for renewal where the agent is no asked to provide any additional service... This has nothing to do with fees to tenants.

buggy_boy

Lokolo wrote: »

Who are these millions of people?

Majority, including my tenants and myself as a landlord, only get charged if they want to renew to a new fixed term contract. Going onto periodic has no additional charge.

This is quite similar on these boards where people are charged for a new fixed term. A small minority, including this person, are being charged for something that will happen regardless.



This would need to be decided by the landlord, not the letting agent. Not paying the fee that only the letting agents get the benefit of, will unlikely mean the LL will issue it at all. Not saying it's impossible, but unlikely.

You will be amazed at the different charges in different areas, just because in your area it is not standard practice does not mean in others it is not. London in particular has completely different charges.

The letting agent would likely class part of the months rent paid to them as their fee and would class the missing amount as missing rent, either that or I suspect in the landlords contract will be something saying that the landlord is responsible for all outstanding fees owed by tenants to the letting agent. So to assume that the landlord will not be affected is fool hardy.

Comms69

buggy_boy wrote: »

There is nothing in law that states any effort is needed to charge a fee, in London it is common place for letting agents to charge landlords a yearly tenant find fee, even if the tenant is the same tenant so they have not actually done anything.

Thankfully the law has now changed however unfortunately because your tenancy was started before the change it is still a lawful charge. For the sake of £125 is it really worth the fight? The letting agent could hand the debt to a debt collection agency which could massively increase the amount owed and could affect your credit rating which could have an affect on your ability to get a mortgage.

It's up to you, I'm not sure what the deposit protection scheme would do, they may side with the letting agent, they could say the money owed is missing rent or they may say that it is outside of the scope of the deposit protection scheme, either way even if they refuse to pay out that is unlikely to be the end of it.

Personally given the amount and the potential downsides I would not risk it, there is a lot of keyboard vigilante warriors on forums suggesting things like ignoring parking fines because they are aimed at the owner where as the driver was the offender... Sometimes it works but a lot of the time it does not, in life you have to chose your battles, if you feel that strongly about it and know the risks and are happy to take those risks then go for it.

Just for clarification those risks could be:
- Eviction - Possibly, but that would be up to the landlord.
- increased charges via debt collection - Where in the tenancy did you read that extra charges could apply?
- damage to credit rating (Meaning getting a mortgage or renting another property difficult) - Credit agencies do not take referrals from letting agents
- Landlord could be very difficult harsh on end of tenancy checkout and you could end up with another fight on your hands - Unlikely. Take pictures, dispute deductions
- CCJ if you fight it in court along with costs awarded against you - If you lose AND don't pay with-in 28 days.

If you still want to fight it I suggest you go talk to the Citizens Advise Bureau as they will provide you with much better more impartial advice..

Your advice, for whatever reason, is missing key bits or incorrect. I've corrected it for you

buggy_boy

Comms69 wrote: »

Your advice, for whatever reason, is missing key bits or incorrect. I've corrected it for you

Yeah fair enough, maybe I could have been clearer on the potential risks, I thought it was obvious... I would add though...

- Eviction - Possibly, but that would be up to the landlord. As stated in other posts the fee could be levied in one way or another to the landlord which could lead to the landlord deciding to evict, it is still a risk.
- increased charges via debt collection - Where in the tenancy did you read that extra charges could apply? As per the name increased charges could apply if the debt is sent to a debt collection agency, although not definite, Usually in a tenancy agreement is at the very least though interest due on outstanding payments
- damage to credit rating (Meaning getting a mortgage or renting another property difficult) - Credit agencies do not take referrals from letting agents No they do not take referrals from letting agents but if passed to a debt collection agency then it could affect the credit rating
- Landlord could be very difficult harsh on end of tenancy checkout and you could end up with another fight on your hands - Unlikely. Take pictures, dispute deductions I dont think you read my other post, I did not say unfair deductions, what I meant is deductions a landlord may be lenient for a good tenant where there is goodwill would likely not apply and yes you could contest and deductions but as stated it would be another fight.
- CCJ if you fight it in court along with costs awarded against you - If you lose AND don't pay with-in 28 days.Yes sorry thought that was obvious

Comms69

buggy_boy wrote: »

Yeah fair enough, maybe I could have been clearer on the potential risks, I thought it was obvious... I would add though...

- Eviction - Possibly, but that would be up to the landlord. As stated in other posts the fee could be levied in one way or another to the landlord which could lead to the landlord deciding to evict, it is still a risk. - It is a risk, but eviction takes 6 months, so I wouldn't be that concerned
- increased charges via debt collection - Where in the tenancy did you read that extra charges could apply? As per the name increased charges could apply if the debt is sent to a debt collection agency, although not definite, Usually in a tenancy agreement is at the very least though interest due on outstanding payments - Yes potentially there could be interest charged, that's going to be 8% above the index, so it's not a huge amount anyway. Unless the tenant is aware of fees charged for pursuing the debt, e.g. debt collectors fees, these cannot be charged
- damage to credit rating (Meaning getting a mortgage or renting another property difficult) - Credit agencies do not take referrals from letting agents No they do not take referrals from letting agents but if passed to a debt collection agency then it could affect the credit rating - Not for this kind of debt.
- Landlord could be very difficult harsh on end of tenancy checkout and you could end up with another fight on your hands - Unlikely. Take pictures, dispute deductions I dont think you read my other post, I did not say unfair deductions, what I meant is deductions a landlord may be lenient for a good tenant where there is goodwill would likely not apply and yes you could contest and deductions but as stated it would be another fight. - That could happen no matter what. Best to assume the worst, take pictures and return the property as close as possible to the condition it was in at the time recevied
- CCJ if you fight it in court along with costs awarded against you - If you lose AND don't pay with-in 28 days.Yes sorry thought that was obvious

Many people think simply losing in court gives them a CCJ. It's worth being clear

Slithery

buggy_boy wrote: »

I think the argument will be it is an administration charge not a charge to change the tenancy. Even if it was only on their systems.. I agree its a ridiculous charge for what might be 2mins of work or may even be able to be automated. But that is the whole reason these fees were banned.

Charging a fee for going onto a periodic tenancy hasn't been recently banned, it's always been an unenforceable clause. There is no paperwork involved as it is the legal outcome of doing nothing.

Slithery

buggy_boy wrote: »

That case relates to charges to landlords, in it if you read the article it states it is about the fees no being clear and a charge being made for renewal where the agent is no asked to provide any additional service... This has nothing to do with fees to tenants.

You need to find a different agent, none of the ones that I am familiar with have ever charged for this.