Clauses referencing management of guests in AST

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    "Not to assign, or sublet, part with possession of the Property, or let any other person live at the Property".

    Prohibiting assigning, subletting and parting with possession is fine in a short term tenancy. However, specifying that only the tenant may live in the property goes far too far It goes against what a tenancy is about, which is the grant of the right to possess property and use it for the purpose for which it is taken. By all means prohibit overcrowding or doing anything which may create an HMO, but a tenant must be allowed to share the property with at least his family in its widest sense.

    Hasn't my tenant also technically parted with possession with the Property?

    You only part with possession if you give up control.

    Comment


      #17
      Thanks. I've made the decision to overhaul my tenancy agreement for the next tenancy whenever that occurs. From what you say it sounds as though it's OK to have the clause in there, but it's just not enforceable in order to be considered as a breach.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by RedDragon5 View Post
        Thanks. I've made the decision to overhaul my tenancy agreement for the next tenancy whenever that occurs. From what you say it sounds as though it's OK to have the clause in there, but it's just not enforceable in order to be considered as a breach.
        I think it's impossible to say whether its enforceable at this point, however, what I think I can say with confidence is that no judge is going to make someone homeless for having visitors around. Therefore it is effectively redundant as a means of achieving possession and there isnt really any other penalty available to you, so it has no real purpose beyond setting expectations.

        Comment


          #19
          If what you need to do is prevent the property being used for holiday letting, your tenancy agreement should probably prohibit that specifically.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #20
            [QUOTE=RedDragon5;n1107787]Thanks. I've made the decision to overhaul my tenancy agreement for the next tenancy whenever that occurs./QUOTE]

            If you are going to do that, start from scratch using a precedent you find in a book published by reputable publisher. Resist the temptation to "improve" on what you find.

            Originally posted by RedDragon5 View Post
            From what you say it sounds as though it's OK to have the clause in there, but it's just not enforceable in order to be considered as a breach.
            On the whole it is not a great idea to put in clauses likely to be unenforceable in the hope that the tenant will abide by them. If a tenancy agreement contains provisions which may be considered unenforceable it may create a bad impression in court.

            Comment


              #21
              To Lawcruncher:

              "If you are going to do that, start from scratch using a precedent you find in a book published by reputable publisher. Resist the temptation to "improve" on what you find."

              Thanks for the advice - do you have any recommendations perhaps?

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by RedDragon5 View Post
                Thanks for the advice - do you have any recommendations perhaps?
                The government form is avilable here: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ssured-tenancy

                Since I no longer live in the UK I cannot recommend any specific book currently in print. There is the Encyclopedia of Forms and Precedents which you should find in a large reference library, but it is aimed at professonals. There is the danger of choosing the wrong precedent, or using the right one but where choices are given choosing the wrong alternative. A good library should have one or two books on letting with a suitable precedent. You do though need to check that the book is up to date. If you buy a guide it will of course have more than precedents in it.

                You can buy a precedent online from Oyez who have been in the business of providing legal forms for years. I have not though seen any of their current forms. You should avoid buying a precedent online otherwise than from a recognised legal publisher. Whoever you buy it from a single precedent often costs more than a book with precedents. You also do not know their pedigree. Some are simply cobbled together and can only with extreme generosity be described as barely adequate. Others have clauses that would drive any decent landlord and tenant lawyer to take to strong drink. The precedent promulgated by one of the landlord associations, whilst not bad, is not wholly satisfactory.

                The counsel of perfection is to get an agreement drawn up by an experienced landlord and tenant lawyer with whom you have discussed your requirements. The main snag with that is the expense if you only have one or two properties.

                Whilst a Rolls Royce made to measure agreement has to be the best option, for most properties in most cases a bog standard will do. The aim must be to avoid anything inadequate, but the problem for the layman is assessing how good an agreement is. A legal document is a bit like insurance - you do not know how good it is until there is a problem. And it does of course need to be remembered that a good doument does not ensure a good tenant.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Sound advice, thank you. I only have one property and consider myself an 'incidental' landlord. My issue is that because it is a leasehold property, with a headlease that is monitored and strictly-enforced by the management company, my tenants often fall foul of the terms of the headlease clauses, despite these things being pointed out to them at the outset (and referenced and attached the TA), and I then have to address the issues usually after the fact. It is also sometimes the visitors or longer-staying guests, (and sometimes without the tenant being present) who are troublesome in this respect. I'm just looking for that insurance that if issues persist I have recourse to a solid TA to evict either by S8 or S21, depending on whether a breach has occurred.

                  Thanks again.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    ...should say accidental, not incidental!

                    Comment


                      #25
                      There's no such thing as an accidental landlord.

                      Most flat lets would have issues similar to yours, possibly not related to holiday lets specifically.
                      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by RedDragon5 View Post
                        ...should say accidental, not incidental!
                        You're repeating a term made up by landlord-bashers to enable them to treat the rest of us as evil, conniving ba$tards

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Yes, all very well, but what about us landlords who are evil, conniving ba$tards, please?
                          I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                            Yes, all very well, but what about us landlords who are evil, conniving ba$tards, please?
                            They are a subset of "the rest of us"

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by DPT57 View Post

                              You're repeating a term made up by landlord-bashers to enable them to treat the rest of us as evil, conniving ba$tards
                              ? I have always taken the term to mean someone who has inherited a property.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                RedDragon5,

                                I should have said in my last post that if letting leasehold property the bog standards are probably not going to be suitable. A tenancy agreement of leasehold property needs to have regard to the terms of the head lease.

                                As I suggested above, no form of agreement is actually going to make a tenant do what he is supposed to do. If you are having to impose restrictions required by the head lease which some tenants may not like, pointing them out at the very outset may help to weed out tenants for whom the property is unsuitable. If a tenant goes through all the procedure involved and thinks he has secured the property and at the last minute learns of some restriction he does not like it does not encourage honesty.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X