Damage clauses in tenancy agreements - long
Jun 16th 2009 | 10:18 am
#1
Thread Starter
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,710
Damage clauses in tenancy agreements - long
We found a house we thought we wanted to rent. Got the tenancy agreement last night, ran through it and found this clause under Damage:
The tenant shall be responsible for and shall promptly pay to the Owner/Agent on demand:
(A) to (c) various clauses
(d) the cost of repairing any damage done by reason of water or gas escaping from the premises or causing damage to the premises
This is a fairly pertinent clause to us as in our first rental house some old water pipes burst (through no fault of our own) and brought down a ceiling, my guess is that the total repairs came to a couple of thousand. That tenancy agreement had a very similar clause but it was qualified by :
as a result of neglect or inappropriate action by the tenant and/or any person for whom the tenant is responsible. So we had no liability, covered by landlord no probs.
So we spoke to the agent this morning who said it was their standard clause, other people sign and they wouldn't change it. So then we sought some advice as we wondered whether the clause would be null and void as it was unfair (had once had a contrct legally checked out in the UK and was told it wouldn't hold as it would be deemed unfair by the overriding legislation). SO checked it out with the Alberta Tenancy act people (Service canada Residential Tenancies Act helpline) and they told us that there are no over-riding damage clauses in the legislation and that whatever was written in the Tenancy agreement would hold. OH also checked out the Act to confirm. Having looked through our tenant's insurance we don't think such damage (due to age etc) is covered. So potentially we could be liable for a lot, if there was a big leak that could do a lot of damage.
So we are not signing , which is a shame but c'est la vie.
I wondered what the legal bods might think? And do other people really sign such contracts? Or do they not just realise the implications?
We also think the agents are potentially doing their clients a disservice as they are losing tenants wanting to move in on the very date it becomes available. I wouldn't be happy if our agent in the UK didn't bounce it back to us and lost a tenant because of it!
Gryph
The tenant shall be responsible for and shall promptly pay to the Owner/Agent on demand:
(A) to (c) various clauses
(d) the cost of repairing any damage done by reason of water or gas escaping from the premises or causing damage to the premises
This is a fairly pertinent clause to us as in our first rental house some old water pipes burst (through no fault of our own) and brought down a ceiling, my guess is that the total repairs came to a couple of thousand. That tenancy agreement had a very similar clause but it was qualified by :
as a result of neglect or inappropriate action by the tenant and/or any person for whom the tenant is responsible. So we had no liability, covered by landlord no probs.
So we spoke to the agent this morning who said it was their standard clause, other people sign and they wouldn't change it. So then we sought some advice as we wondered whether the clause would be null and void as it was unfair (had once had a contrct legally checked out in the UK and was told it wouldn't hold as it would be deemed unfair by the overriding legislation). SO checked it out with the Alberta Tenancy act people (Service canada Residential Tenancies Act helpline) and they told us that there are no over-riding damage clauses in the legislation and that whatever was written in the Tenancy agreement would hold. OH also checked out the Act to confirm. Having looked through our tenant's insurance we don't think such damage (due to age etc) is covered. So potentially we could be liable for a lot, if there was a big leak that could do a lot of damage.
So we are not signing , which is a shame but c'est la vie.
I wondered what the legal bods might think? And do other people really sign such contracts? Or do they not just realise the implications?
We also think the agents are potentially doing their clients a disservice as they are losing tenants wanting to move in on the very date it becomes available. I wouldn't be happy if our agent in the UK didn't bounce it back to us and lost a tenant because of it!
Gryph
Jun 16th 2009 | 6:09 pm
#2
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,319
Re: Damage clauses in tenancy agreements - long
We found a house we thought we wanted to rent. Got the tenancy agreement last night, ran through it and found this clause under Damage:
The tenant shall be responsible for and shall promptly pay to the Owner/Agent on demand:
(A) to (c) various clauses
(d) the cost of repairing any damage done by reason of water or gas escaping from the premises or causing damage to the premises
This is a fairly pertinent clause to us as in our first rental house some old water pipes burst (through no fault of our own) and brought down a ceiling, my guess is that the total repairs came to a couple of thousand. That tenancy agreement had a very similar clause but it was qualified by :
as a result of neglect or inappropriate action by the tenant and/or any person for whom the tenant is responsible. So we had no liability, covered by landlord no probs.
So we spoke to the agent this morning who said it was their standard clause, other people sign and they wouldn't change it. So then we sought some advice as we wondered whether the clause would be null and void as it was unfair (had once had a contrct legally checked out in the UK and was told it wouldn't hold as it would be deemed unfair by the overriding legislation). SO checked it out with the Alberta Tenancy act people (Service canada Residential Tenancies Act helpline) and they told us that there are no over-riding damage clauses in the legislation and that whatever was written in the Tenancy agreement would hold. OH also checked out the Act to confirm. Having looked through our tenant's insurance we don't think such damage (due to age etc) is covered. So potentially we could be liable for a lot, if there was a big leak that could do a lot of damage.
So we are not signing , which is a shame but c'est la vie.
I wondered what the legal bods might think? And do other people really sign such contracts? Or do they not just realise the implications?
We also think the agents are potentially doing their clients a disservice as they are losing tenants wanting to move in on the very date it becomes available. I wouldn't be happy if our agent in the UK didn't bounce it back to us and lost a tenant because of it!
Gryph
The tenant shall be responsible for and shall promptly pay to the Owner/Agent on demand:
(A) to (c) various clauses
(d) the cost of repairing any damage done by reason of water or gas escaping from the premises or causing damage to the premises
This is a fairly pertinent clause to us as in our first rental house some old water pipes burst (through no fault of our own) and brought down a ceiling, my guess is that the total repairs came to a couple of thousand. That tenancy agreement had a very similar clause but it was qualified by :
as a result of neglect or inappropriate action by the tenant and/or any person for whom the tenant is responsible. So we had no liability, covered by landlord no probs.
So we spoke to the agent this morning who said it was their standard clause, other people sign and they wouldn't change it. So then we sought some advice as we wondered whether the clause would be null and void as it was unfair (had once had a contrct legally checked out in the UK and was told it wouldn't hold as it would be deemed unfair by the overriding legislation). SO checked it out with the Alberta Tenancy act people (Service canada Residential Tenancies Act helpline) and they told us that there are no over-riding damage clauses in the legislation and that whatever was written in the Tenancy agreement would hold. OH also checked out the Act to confirm. Having looked through our tenant's insurance we don't think such damage (due to age etc) is covered. So potentially we could be liable for a lot, if there was a big leak that could do a lot of damage.
So we are not signing , which is a shame but c'est la vie.
I wondered what the legal bods might think? And do other people really sign such contracts? Or do they not just realise the implications?
We also think the agents are potentially doing their clients a disservice as they are losing tenants wanting to move in on the very date it becomes available. I wouldn't be happy if our agent in the UK didn't bounce it back to us and lost a tenant because of it!
Gryph
