Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrShed

  1. This is of course true. I would however definitely be taking the credit check fee further....the landlord MUST only charge you how much they were charged for this. They need to prove how much they were charged. Oh just to say....although the reasoning behind it is wrong in this case, it is ALWAYS a good idea to have good contents cover
  2. Not neccessarily, unless she is paying the rent direct to the landlord herself, she is not a tenant, she is a guest of the existing tenant, and so no changes to the AST are required. As she is not on the ASt, she has no responsibility for the rent, and so no need for a credit check. Such a clause is an unfair term according to the OFT....so ignore it. You have quiet enjoyment of the property and so can have guests as and when you wish. Read this thread on another forum for some info about guest situation : http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showt...35&page=1&pp=10 I would also
  3. If she is not on the AST then she does not have to be credit checked. End of discussion basically! However bear in mind that at the end of your fixed term they can evict for any reason, so basically if you are wishing to stay after your fixed term then you might want to think twice before refusing. Just to respond to some of the other points you raised but didnt ask about. Whilst it is fairly common practice to charge the tenant for credit checks(you seem surprised), £250 is WAY WAY too much. I would be demanding to see proof of what they paid originally for your credit check. At most it shou
  4. And also not "usually" - that is the legal minimum.
  5. In all cases. The only exception is in the case of emergency, which this obviously is not. London landlady, you are quite correct, it is prudent not to refuse without genuine reason. I was merely pointing out that the tenant can refuse. And young goat is correct of course about the state of the property during tenancy cannot, legally, be considered for damage deposit deductions. No Angel: as I have stated above, you have the right to refuse access for ANY reason, and so you can refuse access unless you are present, absolutely. And this is a reasonable thing to do. Not what you asked, but
  6. As far as I am aware, the landlord has no right to have the keys. However, it is prudent for a tenant to allow the landlord to have a set of keys in case of emergency, or indeed in the case of a tenant locking themselves out. Just because in theory the landlord may have a physical greater access to the property, they will still leave themselves wide open to legal action should they utilise this access, and so a tenant should not really, IMO, have any objections to a landlord having keys.
  7. And note that the tenant can refuse this entry if they so wish.
  8. Can you post the exact wording of the term please
  9. From a colleague on another forum I visit recently: Advantages: (1) Get reasonably good rent. I consider these to be market value rent. (2) No void periods in between tenancies (3) No agents commission to pay (4) Possible renewal of contract for a further 3 or 5 years (5) Rent by Bank credit into my bank account like clockwork so I know that all loan repayments will be paid on time. (6) HA is willing to arrange all repair work done. They will contact the workmen and the tenants and all I have to do is to pay the contractor's bill plus HA's 10% handling fee based on cost of each job. I d
  10. To be honest, I do not think there is much room for "haggling" when it comes to renting. There are that many people renting at the moment that landlords are not going to have too much trouble filling vacant properties. The only haggling you may get away with is if a property has rent significantly above its market value rent, in which case you may get it down to market rent. But in this case, why not just look elsewhere?
  11. Bankrupt Idiot: You know that you CAN try and argue this, whether it works is entirely up to your agent/landlord! Cant really say much more than that! It is a little bit sly however! All I will say is that the agent/LL must prove the condition of the carpet prior to you moving in if you pushed it and took it to court, and the inventory is obviously lax in this particular area and so it may be difficult for them to do.
  12. Yes, they can. As long as it is outside of the fixed term, then they can do whatever they want. However let me point out they cannot increase the rent without the correct legal procedures, however they can ask you to leave, and evict on a Section 21, without any reason!
  13. I must admit I am not wholly sure, but I am unaware of any legislation enforcing this, and so I would think not.
  14. Unfortunately not. The agent/landlord is totallty entitled to evict you, after the fixed terms and via the proper legal routes, with no reason at all. Hence the danger of not following any requests/demands from landlords.
  15. Basically, unfortunately you are responsible for the rest of the rent, as this is the agreement you made. However, a couple of possibly helpful points: - If there is a break clause in the AST(which I very much doubt) you can leave giving 1-2 months notice. But I doubt this. - If you do give notice, whilst you are responsible for the rent, the landlord/agent must make every reasonable step to try and replace you as a tenant....so they cant just sit on their arses and take money from you. - Your AST will have a term, I would imagine, preventing you from subletting and/or assignment of the ten
  16. Just to briefly add to what Mr Crunch said, as some of it could lead to confusion. You do not have to give any notice whatsoever if you leave on the final day of the fixed term. Only if you stay after the fixed term do you have to give a month notice. Of course, it is prudent to tell the landlord you are leaving, just to maintain an amicable relationship. If the landlord has not served with a Section 21 at least 2 months prior to the final day of the fixed term, then he cannot force you to leave on this day, and even if he has he still cannot, as he would have to go through the courts accelera
  17. - As stated above, whether the guarantor could be chased for damages is entirely dependant upon what kind of agreement they signed. However it is worth noting that the vast majority of guarantor agreements are done incorrectly and do not stand up in court. - Unless the deposit is a stakeholder deposit, you do not have the choice of saying that they cannot deduct such-and-such from the deposit. The landlord can deduct, but you must challenge and sue him for the return of parts of it in small claims court. - I would advise using the deposit as the final months rent, but only if your tenancy ag
  18. Sorry for the late post just read this and just joined anyway It is legal, but only if he actually receives a new contract. Basically the agent is permitted to charge for contract renewal, but only allowed to charge a reasonable rate based upon the work done. So if no work is done, then no charge can be made. And as stated above, the tenant does not have to pay any charge unless it was agreed prior to them moving in, either on the AST or seperately. Note, though, that if they do not pay the charge, they could find themselves evicted as soon as is possible, as it is outside of the fixed term,
  19. This term is totally invalid - it breaches your standard tenancy rights and as such cannot stand. The only way a landlord can enforce such a term is if it is negotiated seperately from the tenancy agreement with the tenant.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.