Church in the front room

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

  • citizenz
    replied
    I think you are all right that I need to say no. You have given me enough valid reasons to reject the proposal.

    They will have to undertake the necessary work to convince me and any relevant authorities that they will operate in a safe and satisfactory manner and have the relevant insurance etc.

    Many thanks I will try and keep you posted as things progress.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by citizenz View Post
    First they did not actually tell me, they accused the carpet of smelling and wanted it replaced. I found it odd. I added 2 and 2 and ended up with 94, and finally I asked.
    What did the carpet say when it was accused of smelling?

    The time for complaining about the carpets and asking to use the house for religious assemblies was before signing the contract.

    It is only the legal, insurance, safety, noise and cost aspects which really concern me, and quite frankly at the moment I could do without the additional bother.
    To echo other comments, just say no. If you say yes to having 30 people assemble on a regular basis for religious worship, then it may be interpreted as carte blanche to increase numbers and/or frequency of meetings. If you say no, then while they'll probably ignore it and go ahead anyway (as they hadn't planned on asking you, anyway), they're more likely to try to keep numbers and noise down.

    If you say yes, then they'll feel hard done by if you subsequently ask them to stop (e.g. after the neighbours start to complain). If they breach planning regs, then you certainly don't want them telling planning that you okayed it. And, as you say, there is also insurance, safety etc to consider.

    I really don't see what difficulty there is in saying no.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericthelobster
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    First, I'm not surly! Don't call me Surly, etc.
    Originally posted by ram View Post
    Replace Surly with Surely.
    That'd be a "Whoosh!" then...

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    First, I'm not surly! Don't call me Surly, etc.

    But in the end, how is it any different from having a very sociable tenant
    with a large family who has an open house for them most weekends?
    Replace Surly with Surely.

    Yes, o.k. You are in favour of letting a church be run.
    end of story.
    ______________________________

    Citizenz.
    If the legalities canot be defined or found, then it is best not to allow a "church". That way you will not be breaking any laws /
    legal obligations / insurance implications if any are subsequently found afterwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • citizenz
    replied
    Many thanks you have definitely given me some things to think about.

    First they did not actually tell me, they accused the carpet of smelling and wanted it replaced. I found it odd. I added 2 and 2 and ended up with 94, and finally I asked.

    I have no evidence what so ever to suggest that they are in any way nutters or that anything untoward will occur. I believe they simply wish to choose their own style. As I have said in every other respect I think they will be very good neighbours and tenants.

    There are several public car parks within 10 minutes walk so I am not pursuing that one.

    I will investigate the availability of alternate facilities.

    It is only the legal, insurance, safety, noise and cost aspects which really concern me, and quite frankly at the moment I could do without the additional bother.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by ram View Post
    "If it arises" ? ? ?

    Surly, anyone can see that they wont be doing a car share on a
    Sunday.
    It does not happen at church, therefore it is SAFE to assume that
    28 / 30 people will arrive in cars, and the neighbours will soon be
    up in arms when their own visitors cannot park in the road, when
    there is probably ample room for one extra car per house, but not
    30 to one house.

    In any business, you should always look at "what if" conditions.
    No church in lower rooms = no H+S concerns, = no wear and tear,

    No church = no cars = happy neighbours = happy landlord.

    R.a.M.

    First, I'm not surly! Don't call me Surly, etc.

    Second, how do you know they won't be car-sharing? Or even walking? Probably best not to assume things about which we know nothing. It's a conversation OP must have with his tenant.

    If he is not satisfied by the replies, then I think he probably has the right to say 'No'.

    But in the end, how is it any different from having a very sociable tenant with a large family who has an open house for them most weekends? How do you go about banning that?

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    as long as the parking question (if it arises) were addressed.
    "If it arises" ? ? ?

    Surly, anyone can see that they wont be doing a car share on a
    Sunday.
    It does not happen at church, therefore it is SAFE to assume that
    28 / 30 people will arrive in cars, and the neighbours will soon be
    up in arms when their own visitors cannot park in the road, when
    there is probably ample room for one extra car per house, but not
    30 to one house.

    In any business, you should always look at "what if" conditions.
    No church in lower rooms = no H+S concerns, = no wear and tear,

    No church = no cars = happy neighbours = happy landlord.

    R.a.M.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    As I said above, it has to come down to a question of degree. If what we are talking about is the occasional prayer meeting then that is surely not significantly different from holding a buffet.
    Yes, although OP is not sure whether the group proposes to hold the meeting at his property every week, or just occasionally. Even if it were every week, I cannot think it would be such an insurmountable problem for the neighbours, as long as the parking question (if it arises) were addressed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    As I said above, it has to come down to a question of degree. If what we are talking about is the occasional prayer meeting then that is surely not significantly different from holding a buffet.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by ram View Post
    You always defend people's rights to do what they want, when they
    want in someone elses property, country, etc etc.

    Most of us think it is unreasonable to let a property, and it NOT be
    used for RESIDENTIAL purposes, and not 32 people in a house let
    for 2 or 3. And where are the 30 cars going to park ? and park
    over peoples drive way, etc, etc, etc.

    R.a.M.
    If you think that, then you clearly haven't paid much attention to what I have written on the subject on this forum! I am all in favour of people behaving appropriately and considerately towards others wherever they are. And I spend much more time than should be necessary explaining to our student tenants that it might be their home, but it's my property and they cannot expect to damage it with impunity. OP's tenant is not inviting 32 other people to live in the property, simply to meet there for an hour or so occasionally as a community.

    There is a however a hint of visceral racism in your comment about people doing as they want in 'someone else's country' - apologies in advance if I am wrong, but it does seem to rear its head. It's more complicated than that. If you mean 'doing what they want' in a legal sense, then yes, it may be that what OP's tenant proposes would be in breach of his or her tenancy contract, but this discussion seems to have rushed headlong into some totally unfounded assumptions that OP's T belongs to a foreign, fanatical, noisy and generally unpleasant and untrustworthy religious sect which wants to turn his house into a den of iniquity.

    It seems to me that the opposite is the case. A Christian group wants to hold a weekly prayer meeting..possibly some clapping and hymn singing... full stop. If there is a problem with parking, then I expect a solution can be found. I agree with islandgirl's comment that far worse things happen on a regular basis in some tenanted residential properties.

    Obviously there is a balance to be struck, but writing the group off as 'loonies' and worse doesn't seem helpful.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    I am struggling to see how that is unreasonable, or
    how it is significantly different from what OP's tenant is proposing.
    You always defend people's rights to do what they want, when they
    want in someone elses property, country, etc etc.

    Most of us think it is unreasonable to let a property, and it NOT be
    used for RESIDENTIAL purposes, and not 32 people in a house let
    for 2 or 3. And where are the 30 cars going to park ? and park
    over peoples drive way, etc, etc, etc.

    R.a.M.

    Leave a comment:


  • islandgirl
    replied
    At least they have asked! They could have just got on with it...there are worse things which happen in rented front rooms on a regular basis..!

    Leave a comment:


  • midlandslandlord
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    Oh, please.

    Whatever happened to freedom of religious belief?
    It's under attack through targeted contempt based on ignorance is what happened.

    (But that would take this thread into Take a Break :-) )

    See: Dick the Shtick.

    ML

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Interlaken View Post

    Also would be asking what type of service - casting out demons and beheading infants would be off the agenda. More info needed.
    Oh, please.

    OP has said nothing to suggest that the religious group in question is either violent or 'loonies'.

    Whatever happened to freedom of religious belief?

    Leave a comment:


  • Interlaken
    replied
    Surely it would be logical to limit the number of persons attending to say 10 if you have to allow it but personally I would say a controlling 'NO'.

    Also would be asking what type of service - casting out demons and beheading infants would be off the agenda. More info needed.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X