Councils given power to penalise landlords for unenforceable tenancy clauses

David

That’s my point to others they really won’t worry about such clauses at all not least because they don’t have access to the millions of tenancy agreements out there.

They will only concern themselves with these if it gets raised by a tenant – so if there is a 12month ast and after 1may the LL tries to hold the tenant to the full 12 months despite RRA then they have powers.

If you have legislation saying something is illegal someone has to have powers to punish when illegal things are done. In this case Parliament decided it would be councils not the courts.

Reply to the comment left by David at 10/01/2026 – 12:14
David

Also to some extent it’s a legal thing and about deterrence. The best way to stop LLs automatically increasing rent by CPI (which will no longer be allowed) is not just to punish those who try to automatically increase rents by CPI in future but also to say such clauses are unenforceable and will carry a big fine if they get included in future tenancy agreements. Then everyone drafting a new tenancy agreement will be careful to not have such clauses in future. Lettings agents; nrla, openrent, and others will remove such clauses from their standard draft ASTs.

I get your concern about over zealous Councils tho..

Reply to the comment left by DavidM at 10/01/2026 – 10:55
Not wishing to be pedantic but councils have been wasting public money for many many years however I do understand the point you’re making and reading your comments on this thread has made this topic slightly easier to understand.

Reply to the comment left by Peter G at 10/01/2026 – 10:16
Maybe this will all become clearer when we see what the government releases in March but let’s hope it’s much more readable as opposed to the RRA.

Reply to the comment left by David at 09/01/2026 – 12:01
I have often observed that the agreements drawn up by solicitors on behalf of letting agents are defective.

Do not rely upon them.

I once had a major disagreement with no less an outfit than the “mighty” Reeds Raines whose solicitors did not understand the importance of specifying that the rollover to a periodic after the fixed period needed to be clearly flagged as being “contractual” (and not “statutory” or even silent altogether on the point).

The argument went up through three levels of management all the way to but just short of the board.

They continued to champion their ignorance all the way to the bitter end in that unique way that is so very common in those who “know better” than you.

Result: they lost all my business as I moved all of my properties to another letting agent.

This is just one of the most egregious examples but there have been plenty of others down through the decades.

Reply to the comment left by Badger at 10/01/2026 – 16:27
I agree with you, having had similar experience with so called legal experts.

Reply to the comment left by Badger at 10/01/2026 – 16:27
Same problem with “contractual” vs “statutory” which some letting agents have no idea about. Really they should be aware and asking the client which one he wants.

Reply to the comment left by David at 10/01/2026 – 17:14
IMO the universal default for letting agent ASTs should be to specify that the tenancy becomes a contractual periodic one after the fixed period.

Can anyone cite a single example of why a landlord would want things to be otherwise?

“IMO the universal default for letting agent ASTs should be to specify that the tenancy becomes a contractual periodic one after the fixed period.
Can anyone cite a single example of why a landlord would want things to be otherwise?”
Badger

Yes. From 1 may under RRA there will be no such thing as an initial fixed period. It will be illegal. I’d prefer to have a longer initial period first but what I want is a legal AST. Sorry to be pedantic..

Reply to the comment left by DavidM at 10/01/2026 – 18:03
Yes, okay, but that is to somewhat miss the point.

We know that the rules are to change.

The example cited is clearly historical.