If the consumer acknowledges everything given the clear language requirements of the CPA and the requirements that housing leases 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 It is also not wise to simply have a clause in the rental agreement for housing contracts that you have withdrawn from the Internet, which states that, to the extent that there is a conflict between this document and the CPA, priority is given to the CPA without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. But at Simon Dippenaar Associates, we believe that a cycle of persistent and repeated offences, which are then corrected, is not a correction at all. This is provocative behaviour, intentional or not, and a lack of willingness to properly comply with the lease. In this situation, landlords may have the right to give their walking orders to refractory tenants. 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.
Under the provisions of Section 51, the following clause in a residential tenancy agreement could be called into question if certain insurance were made to the tenant but do not appear in the tenancy agreement: If our leases are harmed to the consumer, the early termination of a tenancy agreement does not constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement , does not constitute a breach of the lease agreement. , it is a right according to the CPA. A tenant has the right to terminate a lease. According to Section 14 of the CPA, landlords also have the option of informing tenants of the expiry of a tenancy agreement (“expiration decision”). They must do so for at least 40 working days, but no more than 80 working days, before the term of the rental agreement (which must not exceed 24 months, unless there is a demonstrable financial benefit to the tenant) expires and the expiry period must also inform tenants of the amended terms of the new tenancy agreement. , that is, the rental agreement that will come into effect at the end of the term of term. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) stipulates that a supplier cannot subject an agreement to conditions that apply directly or indirectly: regardless of the reason for the termination of a fixed-term contract, the tenant is liable to the lessor (supplier) for all amounts liable under the contract concerned until the time of termination. , but not until the end of the contract under the corresponding agreement. Section 14 – Especially for homeowners, the consumer has the right to terminate a contract by giving the supplier 20 working days. In this case, the supplier is entitled to impose an appropriate withdrawal penalty.
To answer this question, it is sufficient to refer to the transitional provisions that appear at the end of the CPA and which, in summary, provide that if the agreement was concluded before April 1, 2011, certain parts of Section 14 are applicable to the agreement, but only if the agreement provides for a fixed term that expires on April 1, 2013 (2 years after the start of the CPA).