Lease law: Definition of 'one family only' / 'single private dwelling'?

[elfy]

derekunderwood01,

Hi I've just posted a similar issue to yours and wondered if you ever got anywhere?
And did your freeholder asked you to pay his legal bill if it goes to a court/ tribunal?

[elfy]

Thank you sorry I'm new!

[leaseholdanswers]

Seeking counsel is seeking advice and guidance. Counsels advice in this instance is from a barrister who specialises in these areas of law and will advice on the situation strategy and likely outcomes.The client then decides what action to take on that advice. The idea of insulation was discussed sometime ago.

[elfy]

derekunderwood01,

It sounds like the building is a problem are the stairs carpeted? Can you soundproof where you join the hallway and stairs

[elfy]

The Manager should be looking at the consent for under letting and the lease and getting counsels opinion

I don't understand what counsel is And if counsel agrees these people are not a family and are breaking the lease how would it then proceed that the friends are moved out? Is it similar to a court order or even if the counsel agree would it still go to a tribunal?

[leaseholdanswers]

And therefore when it happens and you just happen to have returned home moments after the assailant has fled, the above post infers a possible intent. Its common sense.

[derekunderwood01]

Lol - the thought had crossed my mind.......

[leaseholdanswers]

Sigh, because he knows your complaints on which his client the freeholder is taking legal advice.......

Consider "Dead body of stabbed lodger in hallway- you are found holding the bloody knife- given the history- you killed him".

It is common sense.

[derekunderwood01]

Funny - I surely wouldnt have asked the question had I known 'what it meant', would I? What - for example - is the agent inferring by saying 'all these issues and complaints will be dealt with together'. What does - 'the legal issue' mean -is that a reference to the breach of lease or the legal issue surrounding the methods or means to remove them... As we should all be well aware by now - what is written can supposedly be taken to mean many things...

As regards a jury - your issue would no doubt be well and truly solved by now had it been decided by a jury, DNM - seems to me like youre feeding the hand that takes from you... like the rest of the gullible majority.. the law and the legal system is clearly highly flawed - as is the government - common sense is the only way forward...

[DNM2012]

Not sure exactly what that means...

Yes you do, as in your post 191

Just so I don't hold out too much hope id like to know your opinions on my chances of actually getting rid of the second couple guys?

Already answered, but you have to wait the result of above.

For the record I wouldn't want my case to be heard by a jury, leasehold terminology and law is far to complex, I would definitely prefer a panel of experts to decide.

[derekunderwood01]

I'll reply to the above in due course - but what your suggesting is a clear example of the kind of beauracracy that plagues this country and is the reason WHY so many are able to get away with murder... No one is saying ask the first man on the 'clapham omnibus' ... Rather a jury formed - all facts, background and evidence presented - decision made. the legal system is clearly and by no means perfect - but it's do far up its own arse its barely any use at all... Far easier for us all to take matters into our own hands - which ironically was the very reason government and the law was set up in the first place... To prevent vijalante justice...

just to keep you informed - I have logged all my complaints with the agent and they have written back and said that 'all these issues and complaints will be dealt with together once the legal issue is clarified'... Not sure exactly what that means...

Just so I don't hold out too much hope id like to know your opinions on my chances of actually getting rid of the second couple guys?

[leaseholdanswers]

Most eloquently put.

I am a fan of the “Duck test” - if it walks… etc. Those paying attention to the Tribunal decisions on the “bedroom tax” will be aware that the definition of bedroom is nowhere near as obvious as we might assume.

The problem lies in those regulations and this lease in that we have a fair idea of what the draughtsman intended, however they failed to express it clearly enough, nor consider other perspectives, to make it easily enforceable. Moreover the defintion of family has changed considerably in recent years, bearing in mind my earlier example that the chap would rather his co habitee be regarded as a lodger than be "outed". I am sure that there are beliefs which might see four people living together as being a family.

The other aspect is the emotional or instinctive reaction being tempered by the legal process. Very often we react and then on consideration, change our decisions.

Many reacted with revulsion and shock to the news of the lady whose child was removed by caesarean section at the request of social services. On finding out more information about her health, many changed their views.

Similarly, at a Tribunal the hoped for Jury could on the basis of impressions and character, see the neighbours as four delightful adult people and you as the nasty little man downstairs , or the poor chap living in misery with four sharers living their lives without regard to the consequences to others.

Argument evidence and fact is therefore essential in establishing a broader picture and a reasoned decision which might run contrary to those impressions.

[Lawcruncher]

The fact that lawyers may make money, and more then enough, out of the law is a red herring.

All civilised countries have complex legal systems and laws and the reason for it is that human affairs are complex.

The appeal to common sense is attractive but is a two-edged sword. Descartes said:

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it.

The key phrase relevant to this discussion is: "the prime requisite is rightly to apply it". The danger with the appeal to the man on the Clapham omnibus, whose common sense is often appealed to, is that his opinion is likely to be off the top of his head rather than thought through. In its extreme form common sense is manifested in those westerns where some character in a courtroom scene jumps up and says: "We don't need a trial. It's obvious he's guilty. Let's have a hanging!"

The other problem with your approach is that it is too narrowly focused. We can ask the question: To what extent is it appropriate to impose restrictions on the owners of leasehold flats which are rarely, if ever, imposed on the owners of freehold houses? Clearly there have to be some provisions to guarantee the structural integrity of the building and to ensure harmonious communal living, even if these are relevant to an equal or less degree in the case of terraced or semi-detached properties. However, once you get into life style choices it is different. What is the justification for imposing a restriction on who may reside in a flat? There is little practical difference between a flat being occupied by four related people and four unrelated people. Whoever occupies a property they may or may not cause problems to other residents in the block. So long as a restriction in a lease does not contravene any equality legislation, a court is bound to enforce a clearly drafted provision. Any provision which refers to "family" or "household" is not clearly drafted unless it defines what those words mean because they are susceptible to different interpretation according to context - just go and look at a few dictionary definitions. Accordingly, when it can, a court will interpret a provision in favour of a tenant because there is a rule of law which says that deeds are construed against the grantor and in leases the landlord is the grantor. Just as this rule favours you in any dispute with your landlord so it favours any tenant in a dispute with his landlord.

[derekunderwood01]

This is exactly the reason WHY this country is so backward... The legal system is as it is to make money for the lawyers and solicitors. If there was any financial benefit whatsoever from resolving such matters quickly - they would be resolved quickly. If you look at the majority of situations like the aforementioned - collective common sense of the people could easily determine most things with satisfactory outcome.

The question for example - whether a top floor flat in an old building - directly above and around another owner should be allowed to be let out to two couples who are unrelated and 'mates' - when the lease says 'one family, 'single private dwelling' is a very straight forward one - clearly the answer is no. The question 'What does family' mean - clearly not mates. The question 'Should anyone be allowed to bring in anyone they want when it stands to effect another owner' - again - clearly no, should permission have been given given the aforementioned - clearly not. Basic common sense and life experience allows people to determine these basic questions without a second thought... I can only imagine that the only reason jury's aren't used is because it's too expensive or the logistics to cost ratio isn't feasible. The people are the law...

This slow, ineffective system of government is exactly the problem with this country... the people are the smart ones, solicitors and lawyers are famous for dragging out proceedings to be able afford their bentleys and second homes while the rest of us live in constant stress - day in day out. I believe we all came to a conclusion in this forum in the first few posts alonelone that would suit the majority of level headed human beings, and it's forums like this that ARE the future ..I sincerely hope 'judge dred' is listening to this!

If a jury decides one thing on a Monday it doesn't matter what happens on the Tuesday - the point is that the facts are presented and are different in every case, and in most cases can be resolved by good old common sense. The fact we all have to go through a nightmare process of paying through the roof to get a determination on something that is already staring everyo e in the face is testament to just how backward the legal system is sometimes... The world clearly has to change - or greed and stupidity will be the death of all of us...

[leaseholdanswers]

It also fails to take into account that a jury is instructed as to the law, and how that should be taken into account in their decision making. At best they might determine, on the facts and circumstances in the evidence and argument pretend, if a nuisance had occurred, and no more.

Sadly much of our "knowledge" of juries comes from US TV, in itself not an accurate reflection of a very different legal system.

Much as I miss Denny Crane and Boston Legal, bring back lunchtime Crown Court and Rumpole !

Whether a private prosecution is taken out before a Magistrates Court or an appication to the FTT, they are no Juries to be had.