Landlord wants to include a clause where tenant pays rent if property is vacant after leaving. Is this legal/enforceable?
<p>I'm asking on behalf of a friend. I don't have the contract to copy in relevant clauses.</p>

<hr>

<p>A landlord proposes to change the rental agreement. The new clause states that when a tenant leaves, they pay rent if the property is unoccupied. This way the landlord does not have a void period.</p>

<p>My inclination is that this is not enforceable, because the former-tenant would be paying for a service that they do not benefit from. Also, <a href="https://www.legalforlandlords.co.uk/void-periods-can-avoid/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this website</a> offering tips to mitigate void periods does not list this tactic, implying that it is at least uncommon.</p>

<p>My questions are:</p>

<ul>
<li>Is this type of clause legal/enforceable?</li>
<li>What is this type of clause called? N.B. I found it hard to conduct my own background research, as I don't know what to search for</li>
</ul>

<p>Terms in a contract that are not legal or not enforcable are quite capable of causing you trouble and costing you time or money, most likely a generous amount of both. </p>

<p>Your friend shouldn't care one bit about whether these terms would be legal and/or enforcable. If he doesn't like them, then he MUST NOT accept the changed contract. Not if these terms are illegal and unenforceable and of course even less if they are legal and enforceable. </p>

<p>I would write back "I believe that the suggested change in terms is illegal and would be unenforceable. I also believe that the change is deeply unfair towards me and creates a considerable legal risk that I am not willing to accept under any circumstances. I therefore strongly reject your suggested change. "</p>

<p>It seems like an 'unfair' clause because there is an obvious benefit to the landlord and no benefit to the tenant. If it is unfair it is not binding on the tenant. Is there even a time limit on the vacant period?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2/enacted" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2/enacted</a></p>

<p>That doesn't mean there is no downside to accepting it in the contract. A landlord who wants this in the contract is a landlord who will pursue it (to some extent) and that will cost the tenant some time and stress if not money. If it came to court, I think the burden will be on the tenant to persuade the court that it is an unfair term. </p>

<p>I have not seen it in ASTs, the government's model AST or the government's list of example unfair terms the government has seen in tenancy agreements.</p>

<p>In the comments, Martin Bonner advises the tenant to try Citizens Advice or see if they can have a 15 minute chat with a lawyer for free. It may be worth calling Shelter <a href="https://www.shelter.org.uk/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.shelter.org.uk/</a> for free advice too. But to me this clause does not indicate a reasonable landlord-tenant relationship.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What is this type of clause called?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A 'brass neck' clause?</p>

united-kingdom contract-law landlord is-x-legal