Non AST rental - whats the difference

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

    Non AST rental - whats the difference

    Hi there,

    First post, so all responses and views welcome. I'll try and keep it short.

    I'm coming to the end of a 12 month rental. The rent is >25k, so isnt an AST. I have spoken to lots industry bodies (ARLA, APIP, CAB etc) but trying to find clarity on the following:

    - Unfair terms: the more I learn, the more it seems that my rental contract has unfair terms - does this apply to non-AST?
    - Enforcement of terms: must I do everything in the contract whether I think it is reasonable or not?
    - Check-out: the more I dig the more it seems that the "independent" inventory clerk used at check is a mate of the landlord (not member of APIP, AIIC, no webiste or any other listing) - Can I say that we dont want this person at the check-out and appoint someone else?

    Apologies if I have not given sufficient information above, let me know what more is needed to clarify.

    Thank you all

    #2
    A non-Housing Act 1988 residential letting (common-law contractual) is treated and applied literally, except that is is still subject to:
    a. the Protection from Eviction Act 1977;
    b. s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; and
    c. the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

    So none of the 1988 Act [inc. s.8/s.21] appliers; nor does Deposit Protection.
    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


      #3
      Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
      A non-Housing Act 1988 residential letting (common-law contractual*) is treated and applied literally, except that is is still subject to:
      a. the Protection from Eviction Act 1977;
      b. s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; and
      c. the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

      So none of the 1988 Act [inc. s.8/s.21] appliers; nor does Deposit Protection.
      *More accurately called a "bare contractual tenancy". Common law and the law of contract apply to a greater or lesser extent to all tenancy agreements.

      Add to the above:

      d. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

      Comment


        #4
        Thank you both.

        I have to admit a queasy feeling that the LLs have ensured that the rent is above the upper threshold for ASTs to ensure, what at least to me appears to be, a considerably stronger legal position for all aspects of the tenancy.

        Any views on me pushing for a different inventory clerk to ensure at least some fairness in the check-out and return of deposit?

        Comment


          #5
          Or, as I have just commented in a similar thread, withhold rent at the end of the term equal to your deposit, (although that would probably put you in technical breach of the contract).

          But you will be in a much better bargaining position.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Batty View Post
            Any views on me pushing for a different inventory clerk to ensure at least some fairness in the check-out and return of deposit?
            Does it say in your contract that you have to pay for the cost of the check out? If so I would assume you can employ an independent clerk of your choice.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by dominic View Post
              *More accurately called a "bare contractual tenancy".
              When did this phrase come into fashion, please? What is "bare" about such a tenancy. Further, can there be such a thing as a tenancy which is not contractual?

              To put it another way, what would a fully-clothed non-contractual tenancy be like?

              Comment


                #8
                Or a fully clothed cupboard for that matter.

                "Bare" is preferable because such a tenancy is unemcumbered from the travails of the Housing Acts.

                You could also go for "bald" if that were pleasing?

                What is ambiguous, is to call it a "common law tenancy".

                Also tenancies are governed by common law to a greater or lesser extent.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X