- December 6, 2020
- Posted by: samdenis
In addition, landlords within the meaning of Regulation 5, paragraph 3 of the CPA are not required to indicate that the tenant is liable for an insurance penalty that is so excessive that he sets a red line by the tenant`s right to terminate the notice contract to the lessor for 20 business days. If so, we believe that this regulation merely underlines the owner`s obligation to act reasonably when setting an early cancellation fee. While the landlord cannot be charged for any rent that the landlord should have charged until the expiry of the tenancy agreement of a housing contract, it is doubtful that the tenant will be able to cover the cleaning, advertising and non-occupancy costs of the property for a period of time due to difficulties in obtaining a reasonable tenant (again , the “determined period” cannot cover the entire remaining tenancy period). since the tenant`s liability for all these costs would be punishable and inappropriate in relation to the tenant`s withdrawal rights under the CPA and would also dilute the lessor`s obligation to reduce his injury). In addition, according to Section 51 of the CPA, there can no longer be clauses stipulating that the lessor did not give insurance or guarantees to the tenant prior to the conclusion of the contract if this had actually been done. This fact is false and capable of being challenged by the introduction of extrinsic evidence. The following clause of a residential tenancy agreement would be called into question under the provisions of section 51 if certain insurance is provided to the tenant but is not included in the tenancy agreement: the Consumer Protection Act stipulates that a tenant can legally terminate a tenancy agreement if he has terminated 20 working days in advance. Some homeowners may argue that the law does not apply to them, because they do not rent real estate in “normal business” – how could an owner face such an argument? The consumer must have the opportunity to obtain and understand the provision of the agreement Given the clear language requirements of the CPA and the requirements that the conditions of the lease should not be unfair, unfair or inappropriate, it is very important that landlords pay particular attention to what is included in their leases. It is simply unacceptable to draw a precedent from a free rental contract on the internet and expect that to be enough. It is also not wise to simply have a clause in the rental agreement for housing contracts that you have withdrawn from the Internet, which states that, to the extent that there is a conflict between this document and the CPA, priority is given to the CPA without specifically analyzing and amending any clause of the CPA, and the applicable SA law in general! Landlords open themselves to enormous legal, criminal and financial risks if they do so and if housing contracts are found unilaterally in favour of the landlord or unfair to the tenant or not in plain English or generally at odds with the CPA. Tenants can now, quite rightly, argue that they did not understand certain conditions of a rental agreement, and the landlord will be responsible for proving that this was not the case.
For landlords who think they can get tenants to agree to give up the CPA, it`s impossible (and of course ridiculous). Section 51 of the CPA states that leases must not contain provisions that in any way deprive tenants of CPA rights or that deprive a lessor of CPA obligations or dilute, illegitimately deny and dilute the provisions of the CPA.