pipelining fee when contract change initiated by agent

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    pipelining fee when contract change initiated by agent

    LL/LA contract says "A fee of 1 month’s rent plus vat is payable where the landlord intends to continue letting to the tenants after termination of this agreement". The current tenants were found by the LA, fixed tenancy period is already over and currently running periodic tenancy. The LA sends letter to LL stating that the commission charged will increase by 1.5% in 5 week's time.
    If LL didn't agree to this increased commission, and the LA was not ready to withdraw the contract change, the contract automatically terminates in 5 weeks, I would have thought. However, is the LA now eligible for the pipelining/placement fee as the contract termination is initiated by LA and not the LL?

    apologies, I meant "Pipeline commission"


      I think the appropriate remedy would be not to have accepted such an abusive little nest of clauses at the start. It feels like an elephant trap.

      However you are where you are.

      Ok issues.

      1 Does the LA have the right to increase the agreement at will? Or is there some sort of reasonability test attached?
      2 I am not convinced that an auto-termination-charge is OK when it is triggered by a refusal of a change to the contract, which afaik by definition requires your consent.

      Remember that the LA is your agent, and you are the principal (whatever that means in your context).

      My first strategy would be based on the tenancy not ending and therefore the LA not doing any extra work therefore the approx 10-15% increase being unreasonable. I might offer an inflation increase in their fee.

      Or I might eventually offer some sort of termination payment once my advisers had told me it was valid, if I wanted to self-manage the tenant.

      For advice I would consult my regular solicitor or subscribe to a service such as Tessa Sheppertons Landlord Law for one year and ask her.

      M L
      Refer Mad Regulators to Arkell vs Pressdram.


        Thank you, M L.
        1. no provision for commission increase in the contract
        2. OK

        The rental increase in between already gave the LA 'inflation increase'.. hence my resistance.
        Thank you for your pointers.


        Latest Activity