Restrictive Contract From Landlord

[Foo_Fighter98]

Hi,

The contract I signed with my landlord seems to very restrictive, it says we can't have visitors or play load music after 11pm and any visitors we have can not use any of the house's facilities such as toilets, sinks e.t.c is this legal? We played music once after 11pm and he is now threatening to evict us, shouldn't we get a few warnings first by law? He also has not given us any deposit protection papers landlords usually give and is now threatening to deduct money from our deposit for things we don't believe we should be paying for.

Any advice will be appreciated, currently seriously considering seeing a solicitor but worried about costs.

Foo_Fighter98

[bednobs]

well, you signed it so you were presumably happy with it when you did, and you've broken the terms. Did the contract say anything about warnings? he should have put your deposit in a protected scheme though

[woofgang]

even if he has broken the contract, that doesn't mean that you can.

[Cloverjo]

I think it is usual to have an 11 pm loud music rule, but the other things seem ridiculous. If you can't have visitors there won't be any to use the facilities anyway, so why put that in as well?
I think you should take the threat to evict you for loud music as a warning, anyway. He can give you two weeks notice for any reason he likes if you have a short hold tenancy. He should have given you a ref. number for the deposit protection scheme. Go to CAB for more advice.

[FredPuli43]

You shouldn't have signed it, but now you are stuck. There are some extraordinary covenants in leases and tenancy agreements but, provided they don't contravene the law ["No blacks" etc], they are enforceable because the parties agreed to them.

Go to the CAB. I can't see that arguing that the covenant contravenes your right to family life is a runner, for example, but the CAB might suggest a way to persuade your landlord not to rely upon the more absurd provisions. The noise provision is reasonable. (In Switzerland , I have seen a covenant not to flush the toilet at night, which is considered a reasonable provision there, so be thankful you are not in Geneva!)

[tonywiltshire]

I think the first question you may be asked if you see a Solicitor is why you agreed to the terms by signing the contract if you found them restrictive. There are both mandatory and discretionary grounds under which the landlord can gain possession of the property, but the agreement cannot contain powers which enable the Landlord to end the tenancy before 6 months. You should receive details of the deposit within 14 days of signing the agreement, but why did you agree to terms that you found restrictive.

[Hopkirk]

Find somewhere else to live.

He's not going to get any better.

Oh, and don't play music after 11pm - it's antisocial.

[bhg481]

Are you a student? Maybe your landlord is trying to protect himself against you having several people sharing the flat, being rowdy and annoying the other tenants. It gives him an easy way out if you don't live in a civilised manner and the complaint about the late-night music was just letting you know he's serious.

[joko]

maybe its his way or 'warning' you not to 'take the piss'
maybe hes 'stamping his authority and letting you know he is not to be messed with and will not put up with any trouble whatsoever.

he knows you will have guests and knows they will use the loo, but hes letting you know that you will not get away with anything else, any genuine issue so dont even try it

as a landlord he must know he cannot realistically expect you to obey this - and the fact that you signed it and did not complain about it probably shocked him
he probably has another one, more reasonable, ready for when you complained.

does he live in the property too?

[Peter Pedant]

SOme partial advice here

certainly you are stuck with a contract you dont like

howver I am surprised no one has pointed out he cant evict without a court order
and he cant go to court .... if he has taken a deposit and not registered with a suitable authority.

so at present... he's stuck as well.


if you go onto the PCOL ( possession claims on line )
the landlord has to check a box if he has taken a deposit
and he doesnt check the box about registering with a deposit thingey
it tells him he cant proceed.

CAB will telll you if you can force him to register your deposit
I thought the answer was yes

[pravstar]

As a Landlord and not a Solicitor I would say the following.

1. Not playing loud music after 11pm, thats the law.
2. Not allowing visitors,or visitors using facilities - breach of your Human Rights article 6 & article 8.
3. Deposit must be held in a DPS scheme with the relevant government body. If you don't think he has done that report him as he could be fined up to £20,000, and it will give you more leverage .
4. You cannot be evicted if you have not had warning letters, ie failure to pay rent on time etc, and then he would need a Section 21 which takes 3 months on average to evict someone.

I am not legally qualified, but if there are any points you want assistance with, i am happy to oblige

[Eve]

What kind of accommodation are you in, is it shared or say a lodger agreement? I only ask as we don't know the exact wording of the contract and situation.

Is it definitely related to the house facilities rather than more communal facilities such as shared areas, common part etc... like in an apartment complex? Maybe student or work accommodation?

You should ask for your tenancy deposit documentation (if there is any).

I agree with the others about the music clause, very common and reasonable, it related to loud music, not any music, loud music can cause issues for other tenants, neighbours etc... who have young children or who work shifts, need to go to bed early for other reasons such as illness or who just don't like to be disturbed.

What else is he threatening to deduct money for?

[themas]

If you are in the fixed term of an assured shorthold tenancy he can't use a Section 21 notice - those only apply if the fixed term has ended & you are in a periodic tenancy. However, he can go to Court to ask for an eviction order if you have breached any of the grounds laid down in statute. As you have breached one of the terms it is possible he could do this, but for many of those grounds, the Court has discretion whether to grant an eviction order.

[chelle7272]

Great to see you get advice from a landlord. I tend to agree with joko in that the landlord wants you to know he will brook no nonsense. The 11pm thing is law but I have agreed with my landlord before on a special occasion as we I formed neighbours and gave them a contact number in case it was bothering them. My landlord insists we dont use the upstairs loo for anyglthing other than peeing in case it blocks the macerator lol. He knows we will but we also avoid it if possible, mutual respect, and it has got us a long way with landlord. Mine is a first time landlord and so very worried about falling foul of anyone taking the piss. It coul be you landlord has put this in based on previous experiences.

the deposit thing is an issue though that you should definitely follow up as it is now law. I have a copy of our landlords receipt /agreement (cant quite recall its been a while).
Hope all goes well for you.

[New Judge]

Just to touch on the Human Rights aspect:

Although there are moves afoot to expand its jurisdiction (which, as an aside, I hope are unsuccessful), the Human Rights Act currently applies only to the State and its agencies. Private individuals and organisations are not subject to its provisions.

[Peter Pedant]

Yeah good one New Judge
Fundamental Human Rights doesnt have much to do with clauses in leases

but Pravstar - good to know that you are bearing them in mind in your own leases !

[Peter Pedant]

Following Pravka's lead, I did wonder about Human rights and leases.
The case has to be on european union business, and a landlord and tenants is not really European - altho SImap a European case is about employment law and employee and employer (hours)

and there is one on leases and that relates to Polish govt intervention on leases which were set so low by statute that they the poor little things couldnt maintain the properties let alone live.

Hutten-Czapska v Poland
Application No.35014/97
Before the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)

and with a name like Pravka - i wonder if he knew....

[Peter Pedant]

And finally if one of the contracting parties - here almost always the Landlord is a public body within the meaning of the Human Rights Act, then he will be bound by the charter of fundamental rights

R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 587 [2010] 1 WLR 363 (Rix LJ dissenting).

oops shoud have thought of that
rather obvious really