AST clause giving L right to re-enter for T's breach

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

    #16
    Originally posted by MaverickPropertyManagemen View Post
    I have a tenant who would like them struck
    I think I'd be more than a little cautious of any potential tenant who was already questioning clauses concerning defaulting on the rent! If they were asking what they meant fair enough but asking for them to be struck out would be a bit worrying.

    Comment


      #17
      I see where you are coming from on this!

      What they were worried about is that they had no security if something was to go wrong such as illness etc, that the LL could come into the property and evict them after 14 days.

      The clauses aren't going to be struck, but I have added some wording saying that they are protected by statutory provisions as per Paul_f's post.

      Kind regards,

      John

      Comment


        #18
        Thanks John and jeffrey.

        So the clause:

        The Landlord may re-enter the Property and immediately thereupon the tenancy shall absolutely determine without prejudice to the other rights and remdies of the LL if the T has not complied with any obligations in this Agreement or should be Rent be in arrear by more than fourteen days (whether legally demanded or not).

        reads to me

        The landlord may literally go into the property and immediately after that the tenancy shall unconditionally and irrevocably terminate. ... The landlord can do this if the T has not complied with any obligations in this Agreement or should be Rent be in arrears by more than fourteen days.

        That is it says T is out on the street immediately for not complying with any obligation in the AST (the 14 days is only for arrears). I know that's what you asked originally but it sure reads like the thread has confirmed this is what it means yet also recommends the clause should remain which is confusing me.

        Originally posted by MaverickPropertyManagemen View Post
        What they were worried about is that they had no security if something was to go wrong such as illness etc, that the LL could come into the property and evict them after 14 days.
        I've never paid rent late but even so that would be my worry also.

        Originally posted by MaverickPropertyManagemen View Post
        The clauses aren't going to be struck, but I have added some wording saying that they are protected by statutory provisions as per Paul_f's post.
        Your clause also said if the T has not complied with any obligations in this Agreement and that does not involve the 14 days. So fail to say clean the windows once a month (or whatever) and you are out immediately is how it reads to me. But that's nonsense so sorry for being a pain but my understanding must have gone wrong, can you explain why my explaination of your old clause is wrong? (I am unfortunately sober). I get that you are modifying the clause but would like to know how to read the origional properly, it seems pretty common having searched for the wording.
        ~~~~~

        Comment


          #19
          The wording has to be included (to achieve desired effects contractually) but cannot usually be enforced literally (due to statutory restrictions, IF these apply).
          JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
          1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
          2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
          3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
          4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          Working...
          X