Practical aspects of Unfair Terms in your tenancy agreement
The Unfair Terms rules (now part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015) (the Regulations) were discussed on Day 16.
Today we are going to look at how these rules affect tenancy agreement clauses in practice, including one aspect in particular which often causes confusion. This is the special wording which needs to be included in tenancy agreement clauses which are prohibiting something.
Prohibitions
The rule is that these clauses should include wording, something along the lines of ‘other than with the written permission of the landlord, which will not be unreasonably refused’.
This wording is important as it prevents the clause from being unfair. It must be included, even if you are certain that you will never permit whatever it is. If you omit the wording, the clause will almost certainly be invalid – which is the complete opposite of what you want!
Example – pets clauses
The classic example is a clause prohibiting pets. “I will never allow pets in my property” a landlord might declare, crossing the clause out with his pen as he does so. However, the effect of this is that the clause will be void under the Regulations, entitling the tenants to have whatever messy and noisy pets they like.
We know that this type of wording is required with clauses prohibiting pets as there is legal authority for this. In a case in Spain (which applies here as these regulations come from a European directive) the Judge said that an outright prohibition would be unfair as it would stop a tenant keeping a goldfish in a bowl.
However, the rule will apply to other prohibitions, for example, prohibitions against re-decoration, repainting the walls in a different colour, or using the tenants own heating appliances.
It is important to remember, the fact that the tenant is entitled to ask permission for something, does not mean that the landlord has *got* to grant it. So long as you have a reasonable reason for refusal, and (preferably) this is documented, there should be no problem. There usually will be a reasonable reason, otherwise, you would not have wanted to prohibit whatever-it-is in the first place.
The only cases where the wording will not be necessary is where the action is illegal anyway, such as keeping prohibited drugs or firearms on the premises, using the property for an illegal purpose, or causing a nuisance to neighbours.
Tenancy agreement clauses taking away existing rights
We mentioned on Day 16 that any clause which takes away a right a tenant would otherwise have had is likely to be void under the regulations.
This is why it is so dangerous for non-lawyers to draft or adapt tenancy agreements (and dangerous also for lawyers who are not housing specialists). Because it is difficult to avoid clauses which take away a tenant’s legal rights unless you have a very good working knowledge of what those rights are in the first place.
For example, clauses are likely to be void if they:
- Make the tenant responsible (even if only obliquely) for anything within the landlords statutory repairing covenants
- Say that rent shall be paid ‘without any set off’, as tenants have a legal right to set off in some circumstances
- Attempt to make the tenant responsible for arranging for the annual gas safety check and any repairs to gas appliances
and so on.
Avoiding inadvertent unfairness
Anyone drafting a tenancy agreement needs to think clearly and consider the actual effect and real meaning of the words being used. For example
- A clause which prohibits removing any plants from the garden will also prohibit weeding
- A clause which prohibits tenants moving the furniture to another room, will include things like kitchen chairs, which is plainly unfair and unrealistic (better to stipulate that at the end of the tenancy the furniture and contents should be put back in the rooms they were at the start, to facilitate checking contents against the inventory when the tenant leaves).
- A clause prohibiting keeping combustible materials on the premises would include matches (which would be unfair)
When drafting it is very difficult to prevent this sort of thing creeping in. Often you are so concentrated on what you are seeking to do, that it can blind you to the words’ other meanings. Be particularly wary about adding things on the spur of the moment.
Incorporating other documents into a tenancy agreement
There are times when you will want your tenant to be bound by terms and conditions in some other document. For example
- Landlords’ insurance policies.
- A ‘head lease’, where the property (generally this will be a flat) is owned by the landlord on a long lease
- Some landlords, particularly in HMO tenancies, also want tenants to also be bound by ‘house rules’
However, you cannot expect tenants to abide by terms and conditions they have never seen. Therefore you will need to provide them with a copy of the document, or an extract of the terms that will affect them. Ideally, this should be attached to the tenancy agreement and kept with it.
Attempts to bind tenants by the contents of any document which they have not actually seen will always be considered unfair, and it will always be necessary for you to provide a copy of the document concerned.
NB Find out more about my Tenancy Agreement Service on Landlord Law
All Landlord Law tenancy agreements are created via our document generator which allows for you to add extra clauses – for example, if you need to refer to an external document.

“…it is so dangerous for non-lawyers to draft or adapt tenancy agreements (and dangerous also for lawyers who are not housing specialists).”
I should like to emphasise just how important the above is. You may say “A lawyer would say that”, but if you doubt its truth go to http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/forum.php and look at the posts on break clauses. Whilst non-lawyers may draft well and not all lawyers are good draftsmen, it is unwise for anyone without the relevant experience and knowledge, however well-educated or intelligent, to try his hand at legal drafting. Legal drafting is trickier than people think.
Here is a rough guide to what to look for in a tenancy agreement: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?73998-How-do-you-know-if-your-tenancy-agreement-is-a-good-one
There are also inadvertent ambiguities.
Many English words have double meanings – and the contract will generally be interpreted against the party who drafted it – ie the landlord. It is SO EASY to completely fail to realise that something can be read in a different way to the way you intended.
Whilst it may be inadvisable for non-lawyers to draft tenancy agreements the same would seem to apply to some lawyers.
I have been trying to get a mortgage to buy a property that is already tenanted. The current tenancy agreement was downloaded from the NLA. The solicitors for the lenders insisted on two changes
1) adding a section 8 grounds 2 clause
2) removing the “other than with the written permission of the landlord, which will not be unreasonably refused” from the section prohibiting subletting.
The first is of course pointless when the tenancy started before the mortgage, and as Tessa and the OFT have written the second would likely make the term unfair and have the opposite effect to that intended.
so
After months of trying to satisfy their requirements I have decided to try to find another lender.
To Peter Jackson
I fear you may find that another lender will insist on the same variations. It is probably the lender, advised by in-house lawyers, who has requirements set in stone about these and other matters.
Beyond what you say, a Ground 2 clause is always useless because there is no such things as a ground 2 notice. To exercise Ground 2 you have to have given a Ground I notice.
I thought it was the same sort of notice as grounds 1 but saying that grounds 2 might be used
@Peter You could put them on notice that you will be claiming compensation if you are unable to set aside a subletting due to their insistence on changing the wording and thus invalidating the clause. This may make them think about it a bit.
I had asked them (well my solicitors did) for wording that would satisfy their clients whilst not being unfair. They did not come back with anything.
There were lots of other annoying things they did.After 9 months I was fed up. My own solicitor said he never wished to deal with them again.
Interesting that the Spanish judge considers it unreasonable to prohibit a goldfish in a bowl.
I’ve had carpet ruined by kicking over a bucket whilst changing the water for a goldfish (I did it in my own home!), so even a goldfish is not without risk.
Hi,
In my tenancy agreement, there is a no pet clause, which states “other than with the written permission of the landlord”, but not “which will not be unreasonably refused” – does removing part of the statement make the clause invalid?
Thanks
It may make it unenforceable. I don’t have a copy of the Spanish case so don’t have the precise details of the decision.
That would be my interpretation but we can only know for sure when a Judge in a court case makes a decision about it.