I saw a very intriguing article in i-news the other day and it got me thinking.
The article claims to have identified a new practice amongst
London letting agents, driven directly by their landlords, which sees a
property advertised at a specific monthly rent but with a tenancy clause that
states if the Bank of England increase the base rate, the rent will increase
accordingly each month.
Now, although I can totally understand why landlords would
want this security, it does open a very large can of worms in my opinion.
Firstly, the Bank of England has increased rates 14
consecutive times since the end of 2021, and is expected to raise again on 21
September, to 5.5%.
So, before we open the proverbial can of worms let’s look at
how that would directly effect a tenants rental payments
If the 12 months fixed term tenancy started on 1st
August 2022 at a monthly rent of £1000, the BoE increased its rates as follows
during that 12 month period
1/12/22 3%
1/1/23 3.5%
1/3/23 4%
1/4/23 4.25%
1/6/23 4.5%
1/7/23 5%
This would see the tenants rent increasing by just shy of
30% or £296.74 in 11 months, would an extra £300pm even be affordable to the
tenant?
Now concentrate, it’s the science bit….
Under section 13 of the Housing act 1998 a fixed term
tenancy cannot have its rent increased in less than 365 days, also a fixed term
contract implies that the terms and conditions are fixed for the duration of
the term specified.
Most tenancy agreements already have a rent increase clause
which is linked to the Rental price index (RPI), would this new practice
override this clause or could the tenants see a further increase annually in
line with the RPI.
The key question here “is this practice legal and
enforceable” I would argue it is not.
Yes, you can increase rent in a fixed term contract if the
tenant agrees, and arguably signing an AST with clauses stating the increase,
would indicate that the tenant has agreed, but as we do not know what each BoE
increase will be can the tenants confidently agree to an increase, they do not
know they can afford to maintain.
Is the clause enforceable, the argument that it breaches s13
is heavy and I would say on the balance of probability that a judge wouldn’t
allow rent arrears to be accrued in such an untransparent way.
Does the clause breach the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which is
clear that rent paid at the start of the tenancy cannot be higher than the rest
of the tenancy, unlike Wales tenant fee ban act wording ' it cannot be higher
or lower in consecutive payments.' in England it cannot be lower than
the first payment, so we are confident it doesn’t breach the TFA.
But now we move onto Consumer protection, adverting
standards and contract law, clauses that present undisclosed variable rental
amounts would understandably be deemed as an unfair clause as it not only lacks
transparency but also doesn’t allow the prospective tenant to make an informed
decision about the rental.
Advertising a property for rent at one price but with the
knowledge this will not be the continued price could fall under misleading
advertising rules.
It could also affect a landlords rent guarantee insurance
and any guarantor agreement that may be signed.
How would referencing of these tenants also be accurate, as
referencing is carried out based on the tenants affordability of the monthly
rent, but if this is to rise by an undisclosed amount what affordability do we
asses on?
Equally, if the BoE base rate decreased, would the rent
reduce accordingly.
It is also worth remembering that the tenant still has the
option of submitting an appeal to the First tier tribunal in the first 6 months
of any ast if they think the rent is too high
So inconclusion, its definitely unfair and coercive but maybe not directly illegal. It is however falling into the governments trap of bringing in rent controls as they can now say ' look at what the greedy landlords are doing now - we must have rent control even though we didn't really want it!'
Source https://inews.co.uk/news/rent-tracker-contracts-landlords-forcing-tenants-deals-increase-interest-rate-rises-2587712
No comments:
Post a Comment