Breach of Contract?

C

Charlene6263

New Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
12 month rental agreement in place between tenant, landlord and debit order company.
Agreement states that contract will not be legal if any changes are made without signature of all related parties.
Debit order company changed.
Tenant refused to sign debit order with new company.
A letter from estate agents to say contract had been breached and tenant on terms was sent.
Tenant requested reason for breach as the breach seemed to actually be on estate agent side.
None given - continued paying via eft.
Wanting to cancel contract, but estate agents say they have not breached contract and did not give tenant notice.
Was the contract breached on either side?
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you're trying to worm your way out of a contract by claiming its void due to a change that doesn't seem to have changed the "core" of the contract

But hard to say since the post is terribly formatted
And what you claim the contracts say may quite possibly be WAY off what is actually in them

10c
 
As said above a debit order is the collection of fees from you as the tenant, which was probably implemented to make collection easier.

The initial contract is for the rental of the property, you have agreed to rent a portion of space, over x amount of days, for x amount of money.

Classic example is the sale of Autopage to Glocell, the cell phone contracts that were taken out remain exactly the same, service provider changes.
 
Again,since your reply was the same rhetoric again (post gone now though?)

Charlene6263 said:
Was the contract breached on either side?
Click to expand...

On yours

What's next?
"They changed the font on their contract,contract breached"

You are unwilling to sign for the updated payment method,you are breaching the material agreement that is - exchanging money for habitation paid in 12 installments for 12 months

The method of reciprocation is unlikely to be part of the contract in any material form,and the landlord would seem to be within his rights to terminate the agreement with penalties


Short version: Void clauses aren't there to enable you to evade penalties,they are there to protect contractees from changes that disadvantage them without being consulted
 
PsyWulf said:
Again,since your reply was the same rhetoric again (post gone now though?)



On yours

What's next?
"They changed the font on their contract,contract breached"

You are unwilling to sign for the updated payment method,you are breaching the material agreement that is - exchanging money for habitation paid in 12 installments for 12 months

The method of reciprocation is unlikely to be part of the contract in any material form,and the landlord would seem to be within his rights to terminate the agreement with penalties


Short version: Void clauses aren't there to enable you to evade penalties,they are there to protect contractees from changes that disadvantage them without being consulted
Click to expand...

+1
And presumably the reason why the landlord insisted on a debit order in the first place was to reduce her / his risk of non-payment. So unless there is a material reason why the tenant has opted to not use the services of the new debit order company, it appears that the tenant was at fault, because their inaction resulted in greater risk for the landlord. Knowing that the current legislative environment provides for far more rights for the tenant than the landlord, I would be inclined to be sympathetic with the landlord.

Some questions that may make me change my mind:
  • Did the contract specifically state that the debit order was a condition of the rental agreement?
  • Was the tenant informed in a timely manner of the proposed change, and given sufficient time to do so?
  • Was there a negotiation process?
  • What exactly was the reason for "Tenant refused to sign debit order with new company", and was it reasonable?
It is difficult to say without reading the actual contract, and then again, we only have one side of the story.
 
1. The contract specified that a debit order is an option. Upon signing estate agent insisted that the debit order was a condition. Notice was already given at previous rental place. Tenant signed debit order form.

2. Yes tenant was informed and given sufficient time

3. No there was no negotiation process. Only a letter from estate agent telling tenant that they are in breach of contract and will be put on terms. Tenant requested reason for breach as clause states not changes are allowed to contract and tenant did not make any changes. No reply was given and tenant assumed that contract was not valid anymore and started looking for other rental places, while paying rent on time via EFT every month.

4. On the debit order there is a clause that states the amount to be deducted, but also that more can be deducted at discretion of debit order company should they feel they have to. Tenant does not agree with this clause, which would mean any amount can be deducted without notice.

Tenant did offer to assist in advertising for new tenants and gave 1.5 month's notice of intention to move out.

Estate agents does not want tenant to advertise for prospective new tenants.
 
Charlene6263 said:
1. The contract specified that a debit order is an option. Upon signing estate agent insisted that the debit order was a condition. Notice was already given at previous rental place. Tenant signed debit order form.

2. Yes tenant was informed and given sufficient time

3. No there was no negotiation process. Only a letter from estate agent telling tenant that they are in breach of contract and will be put on terms. Tenant requested reason for breach as clause states not changes are allowed to contract and tenant did not make any changes. No reply was given and tenant assumed that contract was not valid anymore and started looking for other rental places, while paying rent on time via EFT every month.

4. On the debit order there is a clause that states the amount to be deducted, but also that more can be deducted at discretion of debit order company should they feel they have to. Tenant does not agree with this clause, which would mean any amount can be deducted without notice.

Tenant did offer to assist in advertising for new tenants and gave 1.5 month's notice of intention to move out.

Estate agents does not want tenant to advertise for prospective new tenants.
Click to expand...

On the face of it, I think that you might have a case at the Rental Housing Tribunal.
 
Thank you.
I will be paying my last month's rental, even though I suspect they will be keeping my deposit for the expenses they hold me liable for.
They want me to pay their commission for the remainder of the contract, as well as an early cancellation fee and advertising costs.
They also want to hold me liable for rent until they can find a new tenant.
Up and until today there is no advertisement from their side for the rental unit.
At first I wanted to tell them to use my security deposit for the last month's rental, but I don't think that would be the right thing to do.
 
Charlene6263 said:
Thank you.
I will be paying my last month's rental, even though I suspect they will be keeping my deposit for the expenses they hold me liable for.
They want me to pay their commission for the remainder of the contract, as well as an early cancellation fee and advertising costs.
They also want to hold me liable for rent until they can find a new tenant.
Up and until today there is no advertisement from their side for the rental unit.
At first I wanted to tell them to use my security deposit for the last month's rental, but I don't think that would be the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Correct. You cannot withhold the last month's rent -- it would be unlawful.
When you realised that there was a breach from their side, did you inform them (usually required in the contract) and give them the required period (usually 7 days) to remedy it?
 
No-this was my mail sent to them and after that I had no reply whatsoever:

Morning Debbie

Thank you for your email.

On the Tenant Authority page (page 4) it states the terms and conditions between the 3 parties being:

Landlord
Tenant
Debit order company

I have signed the debit order with Company mentioned, which you have informed me on 23 January 2017, have been cancelled on your side.
So in my understanding the debit order with Debit order company is now none and void and no deductions will be made from their side towards my bank account.

Do I understand correctly that Debit order company are then not the 3rd party involved anymore and that New Debit order company is a completely different company involved?

The 3 parties will then be:

Landlord
Tenant
New debit order company

Can you kindly also point out which part of the contract it states that I have to pay the monthly rent by debit order and will be in breach not doing so?

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X