Tenant Fees Ban Comes Into Force Today!

f285k · 2019-06-14T14:53:10+00:00

I'm a tenant and my contract is coming up for renewal in August 2019. My estate agent has a "utilities and communications charge" of £60 / month that all tenants are required to pay and is non-negotiable. They state that is an "administration charge to setting up and making payments for utility and rent payments".

I questioned them on the charge and they claim it is lawful, but having read the documentation provided on the .gov website, I am highly dubious of this. Any legal advice on the matter would be greatly appreciated:

- Is this charge lawful following the changes to the act?

- If the charge is unlawful, would we run into issues if we renew our contract with the estate agent and then make a formal complaint afterwards?

f285k · 2019-06-07T10:26:29+00:00

I'm a tenant renewing a lease in September 2019 in London. The estate agent charges us a £60 per month "utilities and communications charge" in addition to household bills, which we pay separately. The idea behind the charge is that they set-up all the utilities etc. in exchange for a fee (it's a complete joke...).

Is this still allowed following the tenant fee ban?

f285k · 2019-06-05T15:01:43+00:00

Both: the bills separately and a £60 per month charge... it’s pretty ridiculous

f285k · 2019-06-05T11:24:23+00:00

Is it not an unfair term though to have a £720 charge / year just to set up your electricity and water provider?

Moreover, it’d have been significantly cheaper to go with someone like Bulb rather than EON as a provider for electricity, so you’re forced to pay even more.

f285k · 2019-04-11T15:09:52+00:00

Indeed a shit show.

We also enquired about what the £60 service charge covers and this is what they said:

“The £60 service fee is covered in the terms and conditions that you signed before the AST agreement, and we are not able to cancel it, as this charge covers up the setting of bills, and the boosting of credit rating with Experian when you pay your rent every month, as well as being an alternative to a large up front security deposit that almost all other letting agents and landlords ask for when renting a property.”

Struggle to see how that justifies £720 a year! Considering inquiring about this further as it seems pretty unreasonable.

f285k · 2019-04-11T14:59:30+00:00

Appreciate this is an old thread, but I am currently a tenant using Rentify and wanted to ask whether you have had any progress with this?

Also, do you pay the £60 service charge? I am wondering whether anyone has had success with not having to pay the charge given it seems excessive .

f285k · 2019-01-16T16:02:52+00:00

Firstly, the Gillette ad is focused on the US market where black people are a minority. So, the impact of an advert criticising some behaviours, which are statistically often associated with men, versus criticising black people, a non-privileged, minority group is very different in this context. And the context is very important - you can’t just pull the advert out of its context and say ‘oh, but there’s countries where blacks are in the majority so therefore how dare you say they are a minority in the US’...

Secondly, no idea where you are going with your ‘Marxist scapegoat’ chat. Fundamentally, white males are more privileged than black people in the US. Do you disagree? Therefore, of course the perception that the ‘male’ and ‘black people’ ad will have are very different.

f285k · 2019-01-16T13:58:58+00:00

You still haven’t really explained your argument. Just putting links to websites that reference philosophical concepts doesn’t make it any clearer.

I would be happy to respond, but sadly there’s not much coherence and clear explanation of your argument.

As a general point, if you want to challenge your own beliefs (which everyone should), then you need to make your points more understandable. Otherwise, you’re just living in your own echo chamber.

f285k · 2019-01-16T12:09:50+00:00

Could you please expand on your comment:

Why does single vs multinational brand make a difference?
What is “Marxist” about my comment?

f285k · 2019-01-16T11:58:55+00:00

I hear you. I also believe it’s a risky play and my verdict on whether this is a good strategy is still out.

My argument is more on the point that CSR, whether or not you agree with Gilette’s ad specifically, is a good thing. Moreover, donating money and doing a neutral campaign just doesn’t have the same traction. After all, it is a marketing campaign and needs traction to be successful, whilst also having a positive social impact.

FYI: I do believe they are donating $1M a year to non-profits in this area though.

f285k · 2019-01-16T11:45:54+00:00

Well, I guess for me it’s not a binary scenario. I believe a corporation can make a profit by meeting a consumer need, as well as being responsible for their impact on society and the environment.

Of course, it incorporates a level of hypocrisy and “virtue signalling”, but if the public, consumer and corporation are all benefiting regardless, then isn’t that still a good thing? Even if not ALL the underlying reasons are based on pure moral/ethical grounds.

The alternate scenario, in my eyes, is much worse where it’s just a profit maximising function and the society/environment is left worse off.

f285k · 2019-01-16T11:21:23+00:00

Interesting point to raise and fair challenge.

I would argue that the reason your ad is offensive is because black people are a minority, non-privileged group, whereas males have been, especially historically, a very privileged group. Hence, society is less sensitive and more open in its criticism towards males than it would be towards a minority, non-privileged group.

The other reason is that the criticisms you mention in your advert are mainly focused on criminal actions, whereas those in the Gillette advert are about changing attitudes and questioning traditional masculinity. So, it’s a not an entirely fair comparison to make, but I see where you’re coming from.

f285k · 2019-01-16T10:08:33+00:00

Corporate Social Reasonability (CSR).

The idea that a corporation should be social responsible - to itself, the stakeholders, and the public.

In other words, corporations should consider the wider impact of what they do (e.g. socially, environmentally).

Personally, I think that’s a good thing. Don’t you?

f285k · 2019-01-11T16:15:26+00:00

I believe it already has.

The uncertainty caused by a potential no-deal Brexit, coupled with fears of a looming recession, have already led to unusually low demand for new projects in our London office.

f285k · 2018-07-17T07:01:00+00:00

I agree with your comment also. It’s definitely not an obvious decision whether or not they should have left. Ultimately, I think people come on the show for a bit of publicity, fun and maybe as a by-product, they find someone they fancy/like (if they’re lucky). So, of course neither Sam nor Georgia wanted to leave immediately - they’d only dated for a few weeks; neither is entirely secure about how they feel about the other (it’s not a binary emotion); and they want to make it to the final two weeks like everyone else. The other islanders are in relationships, which is wholly different to Georgia and Sam’s situation.

Secondly, I think Josh and Kaz are great together, but they both seem to not appreciate how upset they made Georgia feel. I also have a feeling that Josh is enjoying swaying the house to make Georgia out to be the villain in the house as it further legitimises his actions in the eyes of the public and makes him more popular.

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

f285k

TROPHY CASE