Landlord is selling - what marketing is reasonable??

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

    #61
    Originally posted by nick.. View Post
    As long as you replace the old locks when you move out, its fine. Ignore any pathetic entries like this in the letting agreement saying you can't, its your home, and you are entitled to secure it
    Yes, and when you are at work, there is a gas leak or some other emergency, the LL has to gain emergency access, and you've changed the locks (contrary to the contract which you signed), then you can just tell them that some bloke on a forum said you could. :-)

    You may be breaking their tenancy agreement, but you aren't breaking any laws.
    It's not "their" tenancy agreement, it's the tenancy agreement and is signed by both "them" and the tenant. And if he signed it, he should stick to it. Don't you think?

    Let them threaten to take you to court over it, you're moving out anyway


    Peter

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by pcwilkins View Post
      Yes, and when you are at work, there is a gas leak or some other emergency, the LL has to gain emergency access, and you've changed the locks (contrary to the contract which you signed), then you can just tell them that some bloke on a forum said you could. :-)
      In the event of an emergency, they can force entry, it would be incredibly rare and exceptional corcumstances, and would warrant this action, with the repair costs to be decided later

      It's not "their" tenancy agreement, it's the tenancy agreement and is signed by both "them" and the tenant. And if he signed it, he should stick to it. Don't you think?
      No I don't. If the tenant is concerned about the security of his or her home, its perfectly legal for them to secure it. No number of spurious entries in the tenancy agreement can take away the rights of a tenant to quiet and secure enjoyment of their tenancy

      Of course this could be alleviated by the landlord not placing unreasonable demands on the tenants quiet enjoyment, and not giving the tenant the impression he's going to enter the property illegal

      This is a better arrangement all round

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by nick.. View Post
        In the event of an emergency, they can force entry, it would be incredibly rare and exceptional corcumstances, and would warrant this action, with the repair costs to be decided later Foolhardy!



        No I don't. If the tenant is concerned about the security of his or her home, its perfectly legal for them to secure it.That may be the case, but then, in the event of such an emergency as discussed above, the tenant would be liable for the cost of any damage caused whilst breaking in No number of spurious entries in the tenancy agreement can take away the rights of a tenant to quiet and secure enjoyment of their tenancy

        From a balanced view point, both tenant and LL should stick to the law and the AST. However if one does not, then that shouldn't mean that the other should also break the contract

        Comment


          #64
          That may be the case, but then, in the event of such an emergency as discussed above, the tenant would be liable for the cost of any damage caused whilst breaking in
          Personally, I'd take that on the chin

          From a balanced view point, both tenant and LL should stick to the law and the AST. However if one does not, then that shouldn't mean that the other should also break the contract
          Yep, I made a quick edit moer along the lines of the relationship shouldn't deteriorate to the point of this being required, but I also believe that voids between tenants are a necessary evil for the landlord, and as a tenant, I shouldn't be expected to have strangers walking around my house without some sort of financial compensation, as the last month is costing me as much as any of the other months where I wouldn't accept people being shown around MY home

          Luckily, I haven't had this yet, and I hope I will be in my present accomodation until I can buy in 12 months or so

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by nick.. View Post
            Yep, I made a quick edit moer along the lines of the relationship shouldn't deteriorate to the point of this being required, but I also believe that voids between tenants are a necessary evil for the landlord, and as a tenant, I shouldn't be expected to have strangers walking around my house without some sort of financial compensation, as the last month is costing me as much as any of the other months where I wouldn't accept people being shown around MY home
            I agree, voids happen, not a problem as far as I am concerned, I just factor it into the rental being charged.

            The best way to avoid a situation where the LL is showing new tenants around is to agree it BEFORE your tenancy starts. Both LL and tenant have a copy of the AST, if there are terms within it that are not acceptable, then the time to discuss them is BEFORE signing the thing.

            The amount of times I ask tenants to READ & SIGN an AST and they go straight to the signature is beyond belief.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by Colincbayley View Post
              I agree, voids happen, not a problem as far as I am concerned, I just factor it into the rental being charged.

              The best way to avoid a situation where the LL is showing new tenants around is to agree it BEFORE your tenancy starts. Both LL and tenant have a copy of the AST, if there are terms within it that are not acceptable, then the time to discuss them is BEFORE signing the thing.

              The amount of times I ask tenants to READ & SIGN an AST and they go straight to the signature is beyond belief.
              ...and, by L individually negotiating Tenancy Agreement's provisions with T BEFORE the final (Counterpart) print is produced for T to sign, the "Unfair Terms" malarkey will not affect L's rights of enforcement- "unfairness" cannot affect provisons so negotiated.
              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


                #67
                <shakes head> will always disagree with that Jeffrey, but no way of proving either way

                What I do know is, tenants have successfully had terms in tenancy agreements deemed unfair and unenforceable on a variety of different issues, so its not as black and white as merely putting something in an agreement and having the tenant sign it, and the law will always come down in favour of the rent paying tenant when it comes to who's allowed in the property for anything other than emergency repairs

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Colincbayley View Post
                  I agree, voids happen, not a problem as far as I am concerned, I just factor it into the rental being charged.

                  The best way to avoid a situation where the LL is showing new tenants around is to agree it BEFORE your tenancy starts. Both LL and tenant have a copy of the AST, if there are terms within it that are not acceptable, then the time to discuss them is BEFORE signing the thing.

                  The amount of times I ask tenants to READ & SIGN an AST and they go straight to the signature is beyond belief.
                  Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                  ...and, by L individually negotiating Tenancy Agreement's provisions with T BEFORE the final (Counterpart) print is produced for T to sign, the "Unfair Terms" malarkey will not affect L's rights of enforcement- "unfairness" cannot affect provisons so negotiated.
                  The reality is that very few LL/LAs would be willing to negotiate terms. Those like Colin would be an absolute minority.

                  I would hazard a guess that an applicant attempting to negotiate terms would prejudice their chances of being selected as a tenant, hence most would not take this risk.

                  The Unfair Terms malarky is not "malarky" at all, as the power to influence contract terms is totally asymmetrical. Landlords have it all over potential tenants unless there is a serious glut of property.

                  No, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is a sterling piece of legislation. Where there is a shortage of rental property it ensures some symmetry in contracts.
                  Now signature free.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by lorenzo View Post
                    The reality is that very few LL/LAs would be willing to negotiate terms. Those like Colin would be an absolute minority.

                    I would hazard a guess that an applicant attempting to negotiate terms would prejudice their chances of being selected as a tenant, hence most would not take this risk.

                    The Unfair Terms malarky is not "malarky" at all, as the power to influence contract terms is totally asymmetrical. Landlords have it all over potential tenants unless there is a serious glut of property.

                    No, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is a sterling piece of legislation. Where there is a shortage of rental property it ensures some symmetry in contracts.
                    I'm not sure i'm happy being an absolute minority, makes me feel small

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Colincbayley View Post
                      I'm not sure i'm happy being an absolute minority, makes me feel small
                      Au contraire. Being in an ethical minority should make you feel big.
                      Now signature free.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by lorenzo View Post
                        Au contraire. Being in an ethical minority should make you feel big.
                        No, haven given it a little thought ( and being 6ft 2in and 18 stone ) I think i'm big enough.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Colincbayley View Post
                          No, haven given it a little thought ( and being 6ft 2in and 18 stone ) I think i'm big enough.
                          No wonder your tenants never argue contract terms.
                          Now signature free.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            No arguments about it.

                            Comment

                            Latest Activity

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X