New AST: advice required
Discussion
quick bit of advice needed;
Moving into a new rental property - nice 5 bed detached in a good area, so not cheap;
Landlord is overseas, so property is being let / maintained / managed by third party co.
AST comes through for perusal & signing and two things jump out;
1) washing machine and tumble drier are to be the tenants responsibility in resect of faults during use, and must be rectified if faults occur
2) Tennant is responsible for the end of tenancy inventory check out cost.
I'm all my years of various rentals, including being a landlord, I have never come cross either of these conditions !
for 1) - my argument is how can I be assured of the working condition and potential life of these two items - they are not new, and have no warranty on them - and both being Bosch are not going to be cheap if they do go wrong !
for 2) seems a bit cheeky - I also have to use the company they assign for checkin - its only £80 plus VAT - but its the principle !
Am I being unreasonable in my thoughts ?
Moving into a new rental property - nice 5 bed detached in a good area, so not cheap;
Landlord is overseas, so property is being let / maintained / managed by third party co.
AST comes through for perusal & signing and two things jump out;
1) washing machine and tumble drier are to be the tenants responsibility in resect of faults during use, and must be rectified if faults occur
2) Tennant is responsible for the end of tenancy inventory check out cost.
I'm all my years of various rentals, including being a landlord, I have never come cross either of these conditions !
for 1) - my argument is how can I be assured of the working condition and potential life of these two items - they are not new, and have no warranty on them - and both being Bosch are not going to be cheap if they do go wrong !
for 2) seems a bit cheeky - I also have to use the company they assign for checkin - its only £80 plus VAT - but its the principle !
Am I being unreasonable in my thoughts ?
As a landlord I take the view that I'm responsible for the upkeep of any items I leave in the properties for my tenant's use, and they're respopnsible for using them correctly.
It's not reasonable to expect you to take responsibility for something which you have no knowledge of.
I'll bet it's the landlords main house and they're renting it out while abroad, hoping to ride the market and see it increased in value while the mortgage is covered by tenants. Landlord rule 1 - never put/leave anything in the house you want to be kept pristine.
As for agents racking up the fees wherever possible, don't get me started. We use an agent for finding tenants and nothing else, self-managing can be a lot of hassle but it's far less stressful than having some adolescent with stupid hair and a supersized tie knot dictating terms to perfectly reasonable tenants and having the brass neck to charge 10% or more for the privelege of handing problems over to you after he's made them ten times worse.
It's not reasonable to expect you to take responsibility for something which you have no knowledge of.
I'll bet it's the landlords main house and they're renting it out while abroad, hoping to ride the market and see it increased in value while the mortgage is covered by tenants. Landlord rule 1 - never put/leave anything in the house you want to be kept pristine.
As for agents racking up the fees wherever possible, don't get me started. We use an agent for finding tenants and nothing else, self-managing can be a lot of hassle but it's far less stressful than having some adolescent with stupid hair and a supersized tie knot dictating terms to perfectly reasonable tenants and having the brass neck to charge 10% or more for the privelege of handing problems over to you after he's made them ten times worse.
The 2nd has become standard, totally unreasonable, because it only serves the landlord, without one they cannot make and deductions from the deposit, but it's the lettings industry, there are people out there that honestly believe letting agents are anything other than money grabbing b
ds
The oft has some guidance which make be relevant to the first issue
We object to terms that require the tenant to carry out repairs that are legally
the responsibility of the landlord (see paragraph 3.12). These terms are void,
unenforceable and misleading. Landlords are under a covenant to undertake
these repairs that is implied by statute into the tenancy agreement, and
cannot exclude their liability for failure to abide by such a covenant. A term
dealing with the tenant's responsibility in this area should be drafted so that it
cannot be interpreted in such a way as to relieve landlords of their
obligations. Even where a landlord does not have a statutory duty to repair,
we object to terms that have the effect of making the tenant liable for what
would otherwise be considered fair wear and tear.
The last bit would seem to apply to precisely to this situation.
I'm sure someone will feel the need to say the oft doesn't exist any more so it's void, even though the guidance has been adopted by the CMA.
dsThe oft has some guidance which make be relevant to the first issue
We object to terms that require the tenant to carry out repairs that are legally
the responsibility of the landlord (see paragraph 3.12). These terms are void,
unenforceable and misleading. Landlords are under a covenant to undertake
these repairs that is implied by statute into the tenancy agreement, and
cannot exclude their liability for failure to abide by such a covenant. A term
dealing with the tenant's responsibility in this area should be drafted so that it
cannot be interpreted in such a way as to relieve landlords of their
obligations. Even where a landlord does not have a statutory duty to repair,
we object to terms that have the effect of making the tenant liable for what
would otherwise be considered fair wear and tear.
The last bit would seem to apply to precisely to this situation.
I'm sure someone will feel the need to say the oft doesn't exist any more so it's void, even though the guidance has been adopted by the CMA.
1) Landlord cannot negate their responsibility by inserting an (unfair) terms in to the AST. The only way round this is if they gift you the items but of course they then become yours. Obviously this means at the end of the Tenancy you can do what you please with them.
2) This is fair and covers the costs of someone attending the property (ideally should be an independent person) carrying out a formal and detailed check out report. The cost of the whole inventory exercise (Inventory, check in and check out) should be split between Tenant and Landlord and in our case the Landlord pays about 2/3 of total cost and tenant the remaining 1/3. We do not mark up any invoices and both Tenant and Landlord pay the actual cost (which is discounted as we can pass on volume work to the independent inventory firms).
At the end of the day the inventory exercise helps you protect your deposit as there should be a clear record of the condition at the beginning of the Tenancy as well as at the end.
2) This is fair and covers the costs of someone attending the property (ideally should be an independent person) carrying out a formal and detailed check out report. The cost of the whole inventory exercise (Inventory, check in and check out) should be split between Tenant and Landlord and in our case the Landlord pays about 2/3 of total cost and tenant the remaining 1/3. We do not mark up any invoices and both Tenant and Landlord pay the actual cost (which is discounted as we can pass on volume work to the independent inventory firms).
At the end of the day the inventory exercise helps you protect your deposit as there should be a clear record of the condition at the beginning of the Tenancy as well as at the end.
ging84 said:
The 2nd has become standard, totally unreasonable, because it only serves the landlord, without one they cannot make and deductions from the deposit, but it's the lettings industry, there are people out there that honestly believe letting agents are anything other than money grabbing bds
Not all Letting Agents are rogues, the good ones work extremely hard and have to put up with a lot of undeserved crap. dsI see you are one of those people who begrudges others actually making a profit and earning a reasonable living on the back of hard work.
You're going to pay number 2 either way, whether its open and up front or whether its hidden elsewhere. Given its only £80 on top of what must be £xxxx a month, I'd forget it.
With the washing machine, I'd tell him to have them removed before you move in and then sort your own. You could of course just do nothing, and hope they don't break. With the thought that if they do break, you'll go down the 'unfair contract' route. Personally I'd rather just tell him to shove them in the first place and buy your own.
With the washing machine, I'd tell him to have them removed before you move in and then sort your own. You could of course just do nothing, and hope they don't break. With the thought that if they do break, you'll go down the 'unfair contract' route. Personally I'd rather just tell him to shove them in the first place and buy your own.
TheHound said:
Not all Letting Agents are rogues, the good ones work extremely hard and have to put up with a lot of undeserved crap.
I see you are one of those people who begrudges others actually making a profit and earning a reasonable living on the back of hard work.
There wasn't anywhere near enough of them that didn't jump on the band wagon when the tenant fees revolution came in to stop all the unreasonable fees becoming absolutely standard and in a fairly short space of time.I see you are one of those people who begrudges others actually making a profit and earning a reasonable living on the back of hard work.
ging84 said:
There wasn't anywhere near enough of them that didn't jump on the band wagon when the tenant fees revolution came in to stop all the unreasonable fees becoming absolutely standard and in a fairly short space of time.
Whilst some agents do charge unreasonable fees, why shouldn't agents be able to charge a reasonable amount for all the work (and in most cases there is a lot) they have to do for tenants before the start of Tenancy. I'm sure you wouldn't be keen on doing a load of work and not getting paid for it!
TheHound said:
ging84 said:
There wasn't anywhere near enough of them that didn't jump on the band wagon when the tenant fees revolution came in to stop all the unreasonable fees becoming absolutely standard and in a fairly short space of time.
Whilst some agents do charge unreasonable fees, why shouldn't agents be able to charge a reasonable amount for all the work (and in most cases there is a lot) they have to do for tenants before the start of Tenancy. I'm sure you wouldn't be keen on doing a load of work and not getting paid for it!
1) Ask agent/landlord to remove the appliances and buy your own
2) I always pass on cost of condition report/inventory to the outgoing tenant, the previous tenant should have paid, when leaving for the report that will become your ingoing report. If you are the first tenant then its reasonable for the landlord to pay for it.
2) I always pass on cost of condition report/inventory to the outgoing tenant, the previous tenant should have paid, when leaving for the report that will become your ingoing report. If you are the first tenant then its reasonable for the landlord to pay for it.
Many agency fees now are complete and utter rip offs. Some of the big names now charge almost as much as the months rent just for referencing when others charge very little.
Also there is a big tendancy now for agencies to make you start a fresh tenancy at the end of the period rather than going onto a rolling AST. And of course they like to charge you some extortionate fee to change the date on a word document......
Some of the agencys dont even tell the landlord they are charging tenants these fees!!
Like much else in the UK, its all about grabbing as much money as possible regsrdless now.
Also there is a big tendancy now for agencies to make you start a fresh tenancy at the end of the period rather than going onto a rolling AST. And of course they like to charge you some extortionate fee to change the date on a word document......
Some of the agencys dont even tell the landlord they are charging tenants these fees!!
Like much else in the UK, its all about grabbing as much money as possible regsrdless now.
romeogolf said:
TheHound said:
ging84 said:
There wasn't anywhere near enough of them that didn't jump on the band wagon when the tenant fees revolution came in to stop all the unreasonable fees becoming absolutely standard and in a fairly short space of time.
Whilst some agents do charge unreasonable fees, why shouldn't agents be able to charge a reasonable amount for all the work (and in most cases there is a lot) they have to do for tenants before the start of Tenancy. I'm sure you wouldn't be keen on doing a load of work and not getting paid for it!
I've had agencies tell me in the past they work for the Landlord not me (when I was a tenant) so I asked why I have to pay for work not getting done for me to which they had no answer.
It didn't get me anywhere, but it's kind of fun to turn their double talking slopey shoulder s
t back onto them & make them explain it.1) Bit of a joke expect the company are trying to shift liability to you so if they break down you dont call them and the landlord becomes liable.
2) Not unusual some agents do checkout themselves with the inventory from check in other do this. I have had to pay for these check out inventories before.
2) Not unusual some agents do checkout themselves with the inventory from check in other do this. I have had to pay for these check out inventories before.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff