| HOUSING — Registered social landlord — Standard form tenancy agreement — Whether terms could be altered unilaterally — Whether alteration unfair — Housing Act 1985, s 103 — Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, reg 8
The Governors of the Peabody Trust v Reeve; [2008] WLR (D) 181
Ch D: Gabriel Moss QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge: 2 June 2008
The procedure in s 103 of the Housing Act 1985 could not be used by a registered social landlord to vary the terms of a tenancy agreement unilaterally. Excluding changes in rent, any variation would need the agreement in writing of both parties.
Mr Gabriel Moss QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, so held when rejecting the claim of the claimant, the Governors of the Peabody Trust, against Michael Reeve, a representative defendant of approximately 10,000 tenants whose costs had been paid by the claimant for taking part in the case.
GABRIEL MOSS QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said that two questions arose: Firstly, whether a clause in the claimant’s standard form of tenancy agreement entitled the claimant to effect unilateral variations in the terms of the agreement using the procedure set out in section 103 of the Housing Act 1985; and secondly, whether such a clause would be binding under regulation 8 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Unlike local authorities, registered social landlords ceased to enjoy the ability to vary tenancy agreements in accordance with s103 of the 1985 Act after the Housing Act 1988. His Lordship was not convinced that it was actually impossible to manage 10,000 tenants without a unilateral method of varying the terms of tenancies. His Lordship therefore concluded that the standard form tenancy agreement did not provide for a variation in terms but that, excluding changes in rent, it could only be altered by agreement in writing of both parties. Whilst it was not strictly necessary to decide because there was no right of unilateral variation, even if the standard agreement did allow such a right by notice under s103 of the 1985 Act, such a term would not be binding on a tenant pursuant to r 8 of the 1999 Regulations because, under the grounds within r 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations, it would be a term that had not been individually negotiated and, contrary to good faith, would cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the tenant. To satisfy the requirements of the Regulations, any unilateral variation would at the least need to take full account of the guidelines set out by the Office of Fair Trading for tenancy agreements. |
