-1

I am wondering if it is legal to exclude implied terms in a tenancy agreement and whether I should question/amend the lease before I sign it?

The clause is: 'Nothing contained or referred to in this lease gives the Tenant any right, easement or privilege other than those set out in clause 4.1, and Section 62 of LPA 1925 does not apply to this lease'

Many thanks

  • Do you have any particular jurisdiction in mind? Are you asking whether such an exclusion can nullify statutory requirements or the result of case law? What is an example of an implied term in a tenancy agreement that you think could be excluded? Do you mean excluding a specific implied term such as a landlords obligation to effect repairs, or a blanket exclusion of all implied terms? – user6726 Apr 4 at 16:40
  • Sorry the jurisdiction is the UK! Apologies if I wasn't clear: I am asking whether I am entitled to implied terms under tenancy agreements and whether it is actually legal for my landlord to exclude them in the contract. An example of an implied term from the statute would be: The landlord must carry out basic repairs with no cost to the tenant. However, my question is generic so yes, I imm asking whether they can exclude the blanket of implied terms. – Em T Apr 4 at 16:48
1

The clause you have outlined is legitimate. Whilst it is generally true that contracts cannot simply exclude the application of a statute, s62(4) Law of Property Act 1925 explicitly states:

"This section applies only if and as far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the conveyance, and has effect subject to the terms of the conveyance and to the provisions therein contained."

As such, LPA 1925 does allow your lease to excude s62.

| improve this answer | |
0

Can implied terms be excluded from a tenancy agreement? (UK)

The exclusion of terms that are implied by statutes is null and void. A contract is not supposed to override or contravene legislation or public policy. Likewise, it would be futile for a contract to single-handedly "establish" that certain statute does not apply to that contract (unless legislation itself reflects that the statute is somehow optional).

The specific example of some statute providing that "[T]he landlord must carry out basic repairs with no cost to the tenant" appears intended to protect tenants against the greater bargain power that a landlord typically has. Thus, the enforcement of a contractual exclusion of that statute would defeat legislative intent, in which case the statute is not cognizable at law.

I am wondering if it is legal to exclude implied terms in a tenancy agreement and whether I should question/amend the lease before I sign it?

The legality depends on the statutes involved. Some statutes not only nullify --be it by implication or explicitly-- the effect of clauses that contravene legislation, but also outlaw even the mere existence of such clauses.

There is no general answer on the need for an amendment of a lease that excludes implied terms. The detailed terms of the lease and of the legislation might be such that an amendment is unnecessary because the clause is null and void in the first place.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.