AST clauses & Tenant Fees Act 2019

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    AST clauses & Tenant Fees Act 2019

    Hi all,

    I have spent ages reading all the guidance around the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and have gone through the AST I use in some detail, I have removed a few obvious clauses. I am a bit stuck/need reassurance on 4 clauses in terms of whether they can remain in the AST:

    1) "To keep the interior of the premises and all fixtures, fittings, furniture, effects and all windows in good repair and decorative condition and clean to make good all damage and breakages".
    (I think this is not a fee its damages for breach of contract so can continue)

    2) "Not to keep animals or pets in the premises without the landlords consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld and which may be withdrawn upon giving reasonable notice. If consent is granted to keep an animal or pet, based on type of pet, the landlord reserves the right to charge additional rent".
    (I am confused with this one, I know a 'pet deposit' is now illegal but you are able to charge more rent from someone who has pets at the outset, however can you do this part way through the AST? I know you can increase the rent but can you increase it because they have introduced a pet to the property?)

    3) "If any goods belonging to the tenant have not been removed from the property at the time of the expiration of the tenancy the tenant shall a) pay the landlord damages at a rate equivalent to the rent then payable for the property until the tenant shall have removed all such items b) pay to the landlord the cost of removing and storing or disposing of such goods"
    (I think the term (a) is fine as its charging extra days rent whilst the goods remain in the property but is (b) acceptable?

    4)"The tenant agrees to reimburse the landlord for any excess sum payable under the landlords insurance policy for each and any claim on the said policy resulting from any action or inaction on the part of the tenant or invited guests in breach of this agreement" (Is this still acceptable? I don't think its a a fee payable to a third party?)

    Any help or opinions with the above would be much appreciated, am I also correct in thinking that if the term(s) remained and were later considered to be in breach of the act the AST would continue just the non-compliant terms would be considered irrelevant?

    Best Regards
    Bob.

    #2
    1. Seems OK to me.
    2. Seems OK to me. It is putting rend down that is restricted under TFA.
    3. a) is probably not allowed: it is not rent because the tenancy has ended. b) is OK because it is recovering costs following a breach (assuming there is a clause requiring T to remove all possessions at end of tenancy).
    4. Probably depends on
      1. is there a clause that says T shall not do anything that might give rise to a claim?
      2. Have you given a copy of the policy to the T?
      • If you have then t is probably recovering a loss following T breach, and therefore OK

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by bobcat View Post
      and which may be withdrawn upon giving reasonable notice.
      Comment outside TFA. What notice would not be unreasonable here? If I requested permission to get and keep a dog say, you say okay and I get said dog, no amount of notice you then give me to get rid of the dog would be considered reasonable.
      I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

      I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

      Comment


        #4
        3a. May be allowed as the tenancy has ended. The tenant is no longer a tenant so tenant fees act shouldn't apply (wishful thinking?)

        Comment


          #5
          2) whether consent is granted or not......

          Comment


            #6
            2 is a problem, there's no point giving a commitment to not unreasonably withhold consent if the landlord can simply withdraw permission at any point without reason. There seems to be a consensus that charging additional rent for a pet is OK (still sounds like a fee to me). You might want to change the wording so that the rent may need to be renegotiated if a pet is permitted.

            3a is probably an unfair term, 3b is fine.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
              3a. May be allowed as the tenancy has ended. The tenant is no longer a tenant so tenant fees act shouldn't apply (wishful thinking?)
              I'm afraid that IS wishful thinking as the TFA applies to ex tenants.

              Comment


                #8
                Hi everyone,

                Thanks for looking this over and for your useful comments, much appreciated.

                Bob

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  2 is a problem, there's no point giving a commitment to not unreasonably withhold consent if the landlord can simply withdraw permission at any point without reason.
                  Interestingly, this is now standard wording in the RLA model tenancy agreement

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by DPT57 View Post
                    Interestingly, this is now standard wording in the RLA model tenancy agreement
                    Great, hooray for the RLA!!

                    Be interesting to see how the government one is amended, because it currently states that an additional deposit may be taken, which might no longer be possible.


                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Sorry, no, I meant the wording about having the right to withdraw permission. The clause reads "No animals are allowed in the property without our written permission. (We will not unreasonably withhold this permission.) We can withdraw this permission if we have a good reason."

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Oh.

                        To be fair to the RLA, the "we have a good reason" fixes the problem in the OPs proposed text.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          My landlord is saying that he is keeping the deposit for damage to the property. We took it over 4 years ago from previous tenants who left it filthy. We cleaned the carpets and the cooker "professionally" and painted it. It needed new kitchen drawers that were broken. Electric in the downstairs toilet and bedroom (neither worked) the carpets are stained anyway and frayed around the door frame about 2 inches. There is black mould on the floor and walls downstairs from the leaking toilet setting "floor" mould all over the windows and walls in the bedroom "window bay". Upstairs toilet leaking "we got it fixed but it's still leaking" outside of the window the eves are off and allowing wind and rain in. He says we have caused this. Obviously because of the section 21 he's having to take us to court and he's suing us for the eviction. What can we do. I'm at my whitts end

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I should also say he kept promising he would come do the stuff that was wrong. Now the boiler is faulty and keeps going off. But he won't fix it until we go

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Is the deposit protected with one of the three government approved schemes?
                              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X