Forbidden from displaying political posters in AST- is this right/fair?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I have the window display clause in my current AST. It would indeed be intriguing to see how this held up in court. The immoral one has been in every AST I've ever had and it's always made me chuckle. Perhaps I should argue that paying a spurious contract renewal letting agent charge is immoral, and therefore I would be breaching my own contract by paying them!

tbs624

makeup wrote: »

I work for a local authority and we have this problem at the moment, mostly due to purdah restrictions around elections.

Obviously most of our tenants are not on AST's but I'm sure we do have a few who are on them and I'm sure this would be in there.

Your local Council can have an AST clause stating that Ts must not have bananas visible through the windows but it doesn't mean that any T who fails to comply is likely to be judged to be in breach of contract. I would suggest that any Council T who is "forbidden" from displaying a poster showing their choice of political candidate on the property for which they pay rent should challenge the Council.

makeup wrote: »

We don't allow any posters or advertising for any political party / cause on or in any of our buildings during purdah which we have for both general and local elections right now.

What may be applied to Council buildings/offices/libraries etc is an entirely different matter to what can be applied to tenants homes. Do let us know which Council this is

Welsh_Totster

lynzpower wrote: »

INcidentally the use of the word purdah has been banned for use in the Welsh assembly given its colonial overtones.

As someone who works for the Welsh Assembly Govt you are quite correct, the word purdah has been 'banned' for some time, however some people still use the phrase unofficially.

RAS

not to use the property for any illegal or immoral purposes. Not to hold or permit to be held any political or religious meeting in the property or any other part of the property. Not to use the premises for dancing, music or singing lessons or practice providing that this clause shall not prohibit prayer meetings twice daily over a period of seven days following the funeral of any of the tenant(s).

My understanding is that the first section is to some extent designed to technically protect the landlord from prosecution for permitting the use of premises for activities like prostitution and drug use.

It relates to running a brothel (living off immoral earnings), drug dealing or using the property for other criminal purposes like money laundering or forgery.

The section on lessons is obviously aimed at people wanting to teach activities from home that might disturb neighbours because of noise. I guess the sections on religious and political meeting are also designed to prevent large meetings that would cause a nuisance, but are incredibly badly worded.

Regarding the display of posters, I remember living in a house slap bang in the middle of town in one of the safest Conservative seats in the country in 1979. So safe that the previous administration had tried to evict a council tenant who had the audacity to stand for another party. He only retained his tenancy because the national press got hold of the story.

Anyway, we decided to stir things up and put Labour party posters in two windows at the front and one at the back of the house. The landlord was round in less than 20 minutes. We pointed out our legal right to express our political opinions. He gave up, but as he went out spotted a poster for the local Conservative candidate pinned above the low kitchen door and exclaimed, "well as least someone has some sense!" The candidate was called Crouch.

tbs624

RAS wrote: »

My understand is that the first section is to some extent designed to technically protect the landlord from prosecution for permitting the use of premises for activities like prostitution and drug use.

It relates to running a brothel (living off immoral earnings), drug dealing or using the property for other criminal purposes like money laundering or forgery.

The section on lessons is obviously aimed at people wanting to teach activities from home that might disturb neighbours because of noise. I guess the sections on religious and political meeting are also designed to prevent large meetings that would cause a nuisance, but are incredibly badly worded.

Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 lists as one of the Discretionary Grounds for Eviction as:

Ground 14

The tenant or any other person residing in the dwelling-house has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the dwelling-house or allowing the dwelling-house to be used for immoral or illegal purposes.

so there is Statutory provision in place.


This particularly marvellous AST also contains the following "belt and braces" clause:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Not to carry on or permit to be carried on at the property any professional trade, manufacture or business or hold any sale by auction from or in the premises or occupy the same or any part thereof for any unlawful, immoral, noisy or noxious purposes. Not to do or allow to be done in or upon the property any act or thing which may annoy or tend to cause annoyance, nuisance, damage or danger to the occupants of other properties. To keep and use the property as a residential property at all times.[/FONT]

so it can be seen that the LL/LA is seeking to be overly prescriptive in the first clause I posted up.

I would personally rather live next door to someone who is having singing lessons at home or even ocasionally providing them to others ( both of which could be taken to be forbidden under the clause) than next to someone with a huge flatscreen telly who regularly has the footie on at full volume up against the party wall.:)

moromir

Does this AST relate to a flat or leasehold property?

I have seen a lot of head leases which forbid the use of any advertising poster/placard etc in the window/exterior of the property. (I understand this is mostly to prevent the block being covered in For Sale signs)

As such, the LL may be trying to ensure he complies with the headlease.

As to the legality of the actual clause, I couldn't comment.

BexInLondon

What do we think about terms in the lease that forbid objecting to planning applications?