Maybe the clue is here?
Perhaps Glenn's provision is phrased (with TT guidance) to ensure that it is worded
such that a breach is not what's involved? I.e.
if you do this you'll get such-and-such a reward not being anything to do with rent
as opposed to
if you don't do this you'll get such-and-such a penalty
That might get around:
. . . in that "rebate, refund, or other benefit" relates to rent relief, not some other
fee 'external' to rent?
Interesting to ponder on how the TT folks get around/justify it all.
Any provision in a tenancy agreement to the effect that, on breach by the tenant
of any term of the agreement or of any of the provisions of this Act or of any other
enactment, the tenant shall be liable to pay.
of any term of the agreement or of any of the provisions of this Act or of any other
enactment, the tenant shall be liable to pay.
such that a breach is not what's involved? I.e.
if you do this you'll get such-and-such a reward not being anything to do with rent
as opposed to
if you don't do this you'll get such-and-such a penalty
That might get around:
(2) Any provision in a tenancy agreement to the effect that, if the tenant does not
breach any term of the agreement or any of the provisions of this Act or of any other
enactment, the rent shall or may be reduced or the tenant shall or may be granted
or paid a rebate, refund, or other benefit, shall be construed as entitling the tenant
to that reduction, rebate, refund, or other benefit in any event
breach any term of the agreement or any of the provisions of this Act or of any other
enactment, the rent shall or may be reduced or the tenant shall or may be granted
or paid a rebate, refund, or other benefit, shall be construed as entitling the tenant
to that reduction, rebate, refund, or other benefit in any event
fee 'external' to rent?
Interesting to ponder on how the TT folks get around/justify it all.
Comment