It can be very tempting to keep reusing old leases. They worked before, so why not work this time? The problem is that the law continues and these previous conditions can now be considered unfair and unenforceable. If you have been using a precedent for a lease for a few years, some of the terms of such a lease may be considered unfair. It would therefore be advisable to get legal advice in order to update your lease and verify that all the conditions provided for by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 are considered fair. If the rental agreement does not contain a rent verification clause, the lessor may nevertheless request an increase in the rent. The tenant can, however, refuse and the only measure the lessor can take is to terminate the lease by giving the termination to the tenant.  Art. 3 and 6 Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Commencement No. 3, transitional provisions, savings and subsequent amendments) Regulation 2015 SI 2015/1630; Paragraph 1.2 Guidelines on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, CMA37, Competition and Markets Authority, July 2015. The essential terms of the lease (the terms that define the rent, the details of the property and the duration of the lease) must not be fair as long as they are „transparent“, which means, as stated above, that they must be clear and understandable.  However, they may be challenged on aspects that do not relate to issues that are at the heart of the treaty. For example, the rent clause cannot be unfair simply because it places a higher rent than other landlords, but it can be unfair because of the nature and time of the lease. An alternative to using a rent verification clause would be the use of a shorter-term contract, terminating the lease under the old terms, and choosing to accept a new lease agreement, including rent and other offered terms, or to evacuate it at the end of the previous one.
In one case where neither the landlord nor the tenant would have entered into a lease if the housing allowance had not been communicated to them that it would pay 90 per cent of the rent, it was raised whether the contract had a tacit condition for the contract to end if the housing allowance was not paid. Such a tacit condition would occur only if the effect of the new situation (e.g. B the unpaid benefit) was such that it was impossible to perform the agreement or if the agreement in its nature deviated from the agreement in its original state. . . .