Tenancy Agreement Demands Tv License

[LC1]

I'm about to sign a 12 month tenancy and noticed this stipulation, which I find grossly unfair since I don't own a TV, and dislike the thought of paying a license on principle.

Anyone else have any experience of something like this? Any suggestions for getting it taken out? Or just ignore it and fight it if/when it comes up?

Cheers in advance!

[Squeeky]

Ours had similar clauses, and we don't do the whole TV thing either. - it's not one of the "sequence" contracts by any chance?

We ended up crossing a lot out as there was a bunch of stuff in there which seemed dodgy, mine also had some interesting things about utilities (keeping the landlord notified who the utility was, only allowed to change once per year, and your deposit could be used to meet any outstanding bill when you leave) and many other clauses laying claim to deposits. Fortunately our mortgage holder was only using them for introductions rather than as a management company, otherwise I imagine things would have gone sour... I wasn't very shy in calling them the cowboys they are.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Squeeky

[LC1]

Thanks Squeeky!

Not sure if it's a 'sequence' contract or not. There are other stipulations like the ones you mention about the utilities, but I don't take as much issue with these as I do about the TV License clause, which just seems to be massively heavy-handed and completely unnecessary.

I just wonder whether it's better to cross it out / kick up a fuss / argue the toss, or whether it's better just to keep quiet and then simply not get the TV License. I can hardly see them kicking us out over it once we're settled in the property. Would they even bother to check? I find it doubtful.

[cybernoid]

They've no way of knowing and its none of their business. Id ignore it, you'd need a particularly awake agent to even know whats in the agreement they certainly won't get as far as attempting to enforce something they have no visibility of.

All tenancy agreements are ludicrous containing unenforceable nonsense, I had one stipulate the condition of my car! I just laugh. They have no way of knowing and what are they going to do, kick you out if you cant produce a tv licence? Idiots one and all, just sign it and laugh in their dumb faces.

[Bruce Banner]

Most people have a TV so it's probably just a standard clause. I wouldn't think it would be difficult to get it struck out if you genuinely don't have a TV and are willing to state so in writing.

[gadget]

Doubt it's any more enforceable than a clause saying you have to shop at Sainsburys...

[LC1]

They have no way of knowing and what are they going to do, kick you out if you cant produce a tv licence? Idiots one and all, just sign it and laugh in their dumb faces.

Haha! Thanks for the replies, I have decided to opt for the above as the most fitting response!

The other one that got my goat was about 'locking all doors and windows when the Premises is empty, and at night'. I mean, honestly, who do these people think they are?

[cybernoid]

The other one that got my goat was about 'locking all doors and windows when the Premises is empty, and at night'. I mean, honestly, who do these people think they are?

Do you need to ask permission each time you use the toilet as well?

I think it comes from antiquated/bizarre/snobbish views where a renter is an uneducated ne'er do well who you look down your nose at. But look at the cost of renting, then look at how stupid the staff are in the letting agent, and look at how thick the landlord is. The kids in the lettings office for the most part haven't a hope in hell of buying themselves, what are they making in there 15k? None of them could afford to rent the places I do and yet I can still get an attitude from the ignorant morons.

A bubble cruelly misallocates wealth. Dim fools are given credit they didn't earn and decide that makes them better than everyone else when it plainly had everything to do with their birthdate rather than any kind of 'smart's or competence of any kind. They further prove the point by having no idea that this is the case.

When I rent a new place I am forced to negotiate with such people and it makes me feel ill. I deal with it by laughing at it on the whole and knowing just how grim the 20 somethings future is who populate those lettings offices.

It makes you wonder why they are prepared to work for 'the other side', stabbing their priced out brethren in the back whenever they get the chance.

Hold your nose, deal with them pragmatically and hope to never have to meet them again.

[The White Horse]

Haha! Thanks for the replies, I have decided to opt for the above as the most fitting response!

The other one that got my goat was about 'locking all doors and windows when the Premises is empty, and at night'. I mean, honestly, who do these people think they are?

It might be that some of the contractual obligations are a part of the landlords buildings or contents insurance. So cover for damage / theft may operate for forced or violent entry but not if entrance is gained through an open door or downstairs window.

That said, ignore the clause regarding the tv license. Perhaps the contract is a general one that also covers HMO's where each individual should be responsible for their own TV license and is incorporated into the contract to avoid arguments.

[Gerinako]

Funnily enough when inspecting my rental agreement last night after receiving a letter requesting a quarterly inspection (to which I replied this wasn't agreed and I'll maybe allow it if you fix what I've already mentioned to you) I found that we had a similar clause.

I've just ignored it.

[LC1]

It might be that some of the contractual obligations are a part of the landlords buildings or contents insurance. So cover for damage / theft may operate for forced or violent entry but not if entrance is gained through an open door or downstairs window.

That said, ignore the clause regarding the tv license. Perhaps the contract is a general one that also covers HMO's where each individual should be responsible for their own TV license and is incorporated into the contract to avoid arguments.

I had a similar thought - I'll be asking for a copy of the policy....

[BalancedBear]

Had a clause once about not storing any fuel on the premises. Despite the fact that the house had oil fired central heating and the garden was large enough to need some petrol for a petrol lawnmower. Anyway, the landlord was happy to get rid of it, the agent just used a model contract without thinking about what was actually asked.

[RentingForever]

Slightly off-topic but I once owned a place which had a restrictive covenant from the local diocese stating that I was forbidden to use it as a bawdy-house.

Quite ruined my plans for the place.

[LC1]

Slightly off-topic but I once owned a place which had a restrictive covenant from the local diocese stating that I was forbidden to use it as a bawdy-house.

Quite ruined my plans for the place.

For future reference it seems that the general consensus here is to ignore such silly clauses and do as you see fit: I mean, who are these people to dictate that one can't operate a respectable little brothel from one's own home!

[porca misèria]

Haha! Thanks for the replies, I have decided to opt for the above as the most fitting response!

The other one that got my goat was about 'locking all doors and windows when the Premises is empty, and at night'. I mean, honestly, who do these people think they are?

Mine said something about setting the alarm when the house is empty and at night. I accepted the "when empty" but insisted on striking out the "at night". I keep irregular hours!

The agent was fine with that: they agreed the "and at night" was excessive. Then I found my insurer wants me to set the alarm at night. I still refused, but this time it probably costs