Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShed  Because it is a very minor infringement of the tenancy, and depending upon its wording, it may be classed as an unfair term by the OFT and therefore null and void anyway. |
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 are summarised at this link:
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations - BERR
The regulations provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence not binding on the consumer) if it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties, to the detriment of the consumer.
It may be difficult in a private shorthold letting to prove that the contract was a consumer contract. At the very least, the tenant must show that the landlord is in business. If the landlord is only letting out a single property, for instance, this would not be so.
Even if the landlord is in business, if he has negotiated the letting contract with the tenant, the tenant has no case, because the regulations only apply where the terms were not individually negotiated (the "printed form" test.)
Thirdly, the tenant might not be able to show that the term in question causes a "significant imbalance" between his rights and those of the landlord, especially where the landlord owns only 2 or 3 properties.
This is because, unlike a bank (which has a monopoly of banking business, or which forms a cartel with a tiny handful of other banks to do so), a small private landlord does not monopolise - or nearly monopolise - the market. The tenant can rent from Joe Bloggs down the street instead. So it is hard to see *any* comparison between a small private landlord and a giant monopolistic corporation like a bank.
Under the 1999 Regulations, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has an obligation to consider any complaint made to it about the fairness of any contract term.
Only the OFT and certain other named bodies are empowered to enforce the regulations. Therefore a tenant cannot just sue a landlord on a whim, if he fancies that the regulations have been breached! He must persuade the OFT to sue on his behalf, which no tenant has succeeded in persuading it to do.
Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.
Tenancy Agreement - missed a condition! 
