Any nasties in this AST?

SouthLondonUser

It seems a fairly standard English contract. It means it gives the tenant fewer protections than in other jurisdictions, but it seems neither unreasonable nor unusual by English standards.

Is there anything you are particularly keen on? Unless you have a very strong bargaining power, there’s a strong chance the other party won’t be willing to negotiate on the terms. Also, don’t be surprised if the estate agent rejects any proposal without even mentioning it to the landlord – discussing your proposals would be more work for them, with no upside.
Examples of situations where you could have a very strong bargaining power would be if you propose to pay the first x months of rent upfront, if the property has been on the market for a very long time, if the price is very high by local standards, etc.

Some comments on the clauses:


§ 2.2.4 : can’t change the supplier without notifying the landlord. That’s nonsense. Only at the end of the tenancy would the landlord learn that you changed suppliers; and what’s he going to do, sue you because you switched from EDF to British Gas without telling him?

§ 2.2.10 Buying a TV licence irrespective of ownership? That’s ludicrous. What does the landlord care, anyway? Even if you have a TV and don’t pay the licence, that’s not the landlord’s liability.


§2.3.15 cleaning exterior windows. What’s the property? Cleaning ground floor windows is one thing, but cleaning windows on higher floors can be dangerous if you do it yourself, and expensive if you have it done professionally. I’d limit the clause to ground floor or basement windows, if applicable, otherwise delete it altogether.


§ 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 a 48-hour notice would be better


§ 2.8 make sure the landlord doesn’t leave you his junk. Leaving his junk and preventing you from storing it in a cellar / garage is really something!


§ 2.10 locks: already commented. Ideally the locks should be replaced because who knows who has the keys. Realistically most landlord would tell you to get lost if you propose it.


§ 2.24.1 I don’t expect estate agents to pick it up or to even understand it, but it’s either “Insured Risks”, a capitalised term which must be explicitly defined, or ‘insured risks’. “Insured risks” makes no sense.


§ 2.28 If applicable, you should see the superior lease, otherwise you are committing to respecting terms you don’t even know


§ 5.2.3.3 No idea how enforceable this is: can landlords deduct unpaid utility bills from the deposit? Those are not the landlord’s liability. But flagging it might give the impression you plan on not paying your utility bills, so I wouldn’t say anything.


§ 5.5.1 insured risk is not defined. Also, what if the property is destroyed by an uninsured risk? Do you still have to pay the rent?

G_M

Ignore all this. Sign.

Any clauses which don't apply, don't matter.
Any clauses that aren't enforcible, don't matter.

Raising objections to the contract, or proposing changes, will simply flag you as a 'problem tenant' and the agency is likely to grant the tenancy to a less troublesome applicant.


Pick any fights with them if and when they arise, not before you've even got your foot in the door! Chances are none of these issues will ever arise anyway.

SouthLondonUser

It depends. As with anything in life, you must choose your battles.

If a landlord sees me as a trouble tenant because the only comment I made to the contract is that I don't want to pay to have the windows of the loft or of the 4th floor cleaned externally, then, well, it's the tenant who should see the landlord as probably unreasonable!

If they see me as trouble because I made 50 comments on totally trivial and immaterial points, it's another matter.