Are There Any Restrictions On...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Spark Energy
If it states in a tenancy agreement that the tenant has to use "spark energy". can you just move in and use your own supplier? there is a lot of bad press about spark energy, most recently from BBC's "watchdog"
I think its quite iffy that letting agents are being paid by spark energy to push their product. however if you dont use spark energy where would you stand legally and are there any ways around it?
I think its quite iffy that letting agents are being paid by spark energy to push their product. however if you dont use spark energy where would you stand legally and are there any ways around it?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cazzz1975. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The tenancy agreement is a contract, so you have a contractual obligation to abide by it. It is a contract with tjhe landlord - not the letting agent - so the landlord may be entirely unconcerned if the restrictive clause has been put in by the agents. You could ask the landlord & find out.
I'm not sure what would happen if you just ignore the clause & go to a different supplier. I suspect you could be sued for breach of contract & be made to pay the Court costs & whatever loss the landlord has incurred by your breach.
I'm not sure what would happen if you just ignore the clause & go to a different supplier. I suspect you could be sued for breach of contract & be made to pay the Court costs & whatever loss the landlord has incurred by your breach.
Update:
This is becoming quite common - to say that the supplier cannot be changed.
Pay as you go and rate shifters and so on want to get the best deal
and I think Landlords do for their tenants as well.
Imagine my surprise therefore to be given an intention to summons for debt on a property - where I had chucked the tenant out for rent arrears.
And he had changed the supplier without my knowledge
and had unilaterally said the Landlord had given permission
and there was a standing charge - yes on pay as you go - that when the property was vacated became mine all mine.
and the little girlie at the other end said - you should have put in a clause (lets call it the sparkle clause) to prevent this....
Oh said she the intention is (this is the skool leaver at the other end) to convert a personal charge or contract to one that runs with the property.
and I squeaked Tulk v Moxhay 1848 - you can't do this without my written permission.....
and so that is why it is in.
Rip off - the intention is to minimise losses by going after the landlord,
the effect will be to ossify electricity suppliers and to freeze the market.
Ho hum.....
This is becoming quite common - to say that the supplier cannot be changed.
Pay as you go and rate shifters and so on want to get the best deal
and I think Landlords do for their tenants as well.
Imagine my surprise therefore to be given an intention to summons for debt on a property - where I had chucked the tenant out for rent arrears.
And he had changed the supplier without my knowledge
and had unilaterally said the Landlord had given permission
and there was a standing charge - yes on pay as you go - that when the property was vacated became mine all mine.
and the little girlie at the other end said - you should have put in a clause (lets call it the sparkle clause) to prevent this....
Oh said she the intention is (this is the skool leaver at the other end) to convert a personal charge or contract to one that runs with the property.
and I squeaked Tulk v Moxhay 1848 - you can't do this without my written permission.....
and so that is why it is in.
Rip off - the intention is to minimise losses by going after the landlord,
the effect will be to ossify electricity suppliers and to freeze the market.
Ho hum.....
1 to 3 of 3
