MrShed

I'm sorry, but thats just not true. If a contract is illegal, it cannot be enforced, you are correct. This contract is not illegal. In a tenancy, if CERTAIN TERMS are considered unfair, then they cannot be enforced. However, this is not a tenancy. This comes down to simple contract law. Whilst I agree that in court, the landlord would probably not get(for example) 6 months rent paid to him, I would also consider it unlikely(due to that contract) that the court would obstruct a claim for 2 or 3 months. The OP needs to be VERY aware that this is not a tenancy, and as such statute law and the OFT's rulings on fair terms do not apply. There is NO LAW that prevents a contract(a standard contract, not a tenancy or other "regulated" contract) from applying if the terms are considered unfair. Apart from anything else, there is no kind of legal definition of unfair for contract terms - only for tenancy terms, which this is not!

Your GF is a lodger. However, if she signs an agreement, she is contractually obliged to fulfil the terms of the agreement she signs. I would advise that she does not sign the agreement, as if she does, there is no question that she is liable for the terms within it. The terms cannot be overrulled as suggested by the OFT unfair terms, and/or "preventing roam of employment".

Hi IP, Its been a while since I've been on this forum, but your PM prompted me to respond to this post in particular. I would be interested to see any case(or indeed statute) law to base this post on? I fail to see any way in which an agent could be held financially responsible for such an outcome.

Do both, and don't worry about it - even if baliffs do turn up at your door, they cannot gain entry.

Without running water the property is uninhabitable(I assume you have central heating), and so the landlord should be footing the bill for temporary rehousing.

Don't do that - IMO. Rent guarantee products money is better spent on thoroughly vetting your tenant yourself(credit check, references etc), therefore minimising your chances of not having rent paid.

Actually I wouldn't consider it a no brainer - the capital gain would more than offset any such loss, usually. That is why in a lot of circumstances it is worth having a BTL property that is making a small loss each year.

This completely depends upon your personal circumstances and also your belief in what the market will do. I would say it is a fairly universal belief(even amongst HPCers) that long term, the market will grow. With this in mind, I would always say if you can afford it, do not sell. To address a couple of the concerns about renting: - Too many new developments - new developments usually means the area is growing and improving, and as such would nearly always have a positive impact upon the rental market in the area, not the negative you think. Better area = increased demand for property. - Percentage increase etc - not sure where you have got your figures from, but any yield above around 7% is very good at the moment, and 5% is certainly sustainable. If you find anywhere that gives a 15% yield please tell me!! Think about it this way, 5% is probably around the maximum you would get(long term) from a decent savings account, so you should get around the same returns just of renting, then capital gain on top. - It can be stressful, but can also be quite fulfilling. The stress can be minimsed by researching WELL rental/letting law(would strongly recommend a perusal of the forums and articles at www.landlordzone.co.uk for this). If you still feel unsure you can always retain the services of a letting agent. As an example, our two longest owned properties now both have tenants who have been present for 7 years, we barely ever even hear from them. Rent paid on time, the places are in good condition when we do have reason to go round etc. The most important thing for renting IMO is the thorough vetting/checking of any potential tenants. I guess my main thought would be, are the new developments/redevelopments still under way, or are they mainly complete? In other words, has the market growth in that area perhaps peaked, or is there more to come with more development? Hope that gives you some things to think about - as I say it is impossible to give a definitive answer.

If housing problems get a lot worse, then if the government chose option 2 they would be idiots. All it would result in would be less private landlords, the housing market WOULD then crash, and would probably lead to recession. My main point is, let me put it as an analogy. If you can't afford to buy a car, then you use public transport. On public transport, you cannot demand that the driver take you exactly where you want to go, or directly there etc etc. You lose that flexibility. Same with housing. If you can't afford to own a house, then you lose some of the flexibility that you have when owning a house. If everyone had total control over their rented property and had total security, then no one would buy property! Good debate this by the way

They are all people looking for somewhere to live, I agree. But a private landlord does not have some kind of social responsibility to house the most vulnerable, or the people least likely to find a home elsewhere. This is what social housing is provided for. These people are investing, and frankly if you get a bad tenant, the investment is no longer viable. They can limit the chance of getting a bad tenant by preventing access to the investment to the groups that tend to produce the most bad tenants. NO private landlord is in it not to make money, therefore they have to maximise this ability. If landlords were not there to make money, the housing market(including letting) would collapse. What tenants need to realise is the following - and I am a tenant myself, so again not biased. If you are not financially able to own your own property, as many are not, then people need to realise that if they do not own their own property they cannot ENTIRELY treat a rented place as their own property - and more to the point, realise that landlords are not only entitled, but have a MORAL right to ensure that to the extent allowed by law, the property is NOT treated as if it were the tenants own property.

Yes, but generally, pets and DSS tenants will in fact cause on AVERAGE, more damage to a property than otherwise. Pets, well it kind of goes with the territory. And DSS tenants, it has been shown to statistically be the case, you can decide for yourself why this may be. It is not all of them, but unfortunately DSS tenants have all been "tarred with the same brush", so to speak, and you cannot blame landlords for thinking this and wanting to protect their property.

To answer what I think your question may be more meant to be, no the landlord has no LEGAL obligation to fix any of this. However, it would obviously be a good idea for him to do so.

Another typical emotive overreaction from a tenant. Why shouldn't a landlord be able to pick who he rents to? And if that picking means that he wants to keep the property in a good state, then why on earth not? And, before you reply to me, please read my previous posts that show I am in no way biased towards landlords.

I would inform the landlord, in writing, that unless he arranges and pays for it, you will not do it, and you are not responsible for any consequences of this that may arise. Or you could do as you suggest and utilise your right of offset, although personally I would probably just wash my hands of it. If you do either, I would advise when you leave to withhold the last months rent - he will probably try and collar you for it.

If you have a fixed term tenancy agreement til next year, then they cannot evict without rent arrears or the like.

Possible to sign up longer? Yes. Will be able to? Unlikely. Most landlords won;t give more than a year, in case of problems. That is not to say that you would have to move out after 6 months of course, but the security is obviously worse in this case.

Not just worth it, would be the best idea, as it shows in court you have attempted to resolve the issue. In the letter, give them 14 days to pay up.

Sounds to me as if he cant lose, based on the info you have given. But, it depends on how the case goes on the day.

You can ignore that term. He can only deduct from the deposit at the end.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It is whether it would be successful or not which is the question. To succeed in a court case, the claimant must show proof of what is owed by the defendant. If there is nothing owed, there can be no proof, so no success. As for what you say about the deposit and deductions, you can ONLY deduct from the deposit at the end of the tenancy, not during, so I am unsure where you get this idea from that he is in breach.

Of course it does, but not legally enforceable. You do not need a solicitor to do any of this, just use moneyclaim. Will cost around £50, and you can sue for that charge as well.

It is not a problem for you no. They cannot charge you for damages if there is no inventory, simple as.

No it does not affect tenancy agreements. However, if written in, it MAY affect it, but not automatically break it. However, I would argue that it is an unfair term as it infringes upon the tenants right to quiet enjoyment of the property. Suffice to say, in this situation, it has nothing to do with it, and there is certainly nothing written in law about it.

You are liable for the rent during the fixed term of the contract. If you get in writing from the landlord that he has happy to let you go, you will no longer have this obligation. You need not write a "termination of contract", just give formal written notice of the date you are intending to leave, and ask for confirmation back in writing that this is ok. And, the 2 weeks thing is rubbish.

If the place is flats with a communal area, then the collective responsibility is assumed. I would suggest that it is not especially "unfair" of the landlord(from his point of view) to do this, as it is nigh on impossible for him/her/them to narrow it down to specific people. However, I would point out two things. First of all, it IS unfair(IMO) to charge this prior to you moving out, as you can have the property as you wish, as long as it is in good condition when you move out. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the "manager" of the property(probably the letting agent) for communal areas in an HMO. Unless there is something explicitly stated in your AST, I would doubt that they can pass this cost on to you. All that said, I would strongly advise paying. It is all well and good having principles, but said principles could well mean you are looking for another home in 2 months. And after all, although maybe slightly misguided, the LA does seem to have the best interests of the tenants as a whole and the condition of the property at heart.