More persons in my rental property than I thought

rexmedorum

well no but now he has signeed a contract with an unfair term. Just saying that he wouldn't have signed it had he known about the kids, doesn't make thee term fair, nor inforcable surely. He can always serve notice for when the contract is up though.

I have asked a question about a term about professional cleaning being required (and receipt needing to be produced upon moving out) and many are is advising me to just sign and if necessary take it up with the deposit scheme. Surely there is little difference between this and having children?? (well from the cotract point of view)

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i don't think this has much to do with unfair contract clauses, as the LL had no intention of entering into a contract with a family with children in the first place. the only reason there is a tenancy is because the tenant did not disclose the true position to the LL. whether that was a deliberately dishonest act on the part of the tenant or not we do not know.

this is only really the same as a LL not wanting to rent a 2 bedroom flat to two couples because they do not want 4 people living in the property due to the additional wear and tear it will cause. if that is not reasonable, then the logical extension of some of the arguments being made here is that the LL should not be able to vet a tenant beyond establishing that they can pay the rent.

Pennylane

A person I know was approached by a young Mum she knew to see if she could rent her cottage. The cottage was normally used for holiday accommodation.

The young Mum had recently left her husband and was bringing 2 primary age kids. The cottage is very small and only suitable for those 3. All went well for a few months and then she moved in a new man without telling the Landlady. The new man had 4 children of his own and very often had some of them staying over too.

The young Mum then got pregnant again so there was sometimes 2 adults, 6 children living there and a baby on the way. The house was virtually trashed with all these kids running wild, as was the garden.
Massive craters dug out of the lawn, shrubs uprooted, branches snapped off, washing lines broken. In the house, just about every door on cupboards was hanging off, knobs were missing from appliances, wooden flooring was heavily scratched from them dragging furniture around all the time to accommodate so many.

She had a terrible job getting them all out and if I remember rightly she gave them 6 months notice to leave. She did this because she felt people would judge her for getting rid of a pregnant woman, but I'm not sure some would have been so generous.

It cost her a lot of money in legal fees and she had to serve an eviction notice on her in the end. She has now gone back to holiday lettings.

chewmylegoff

rexmedorum wrote: »

well no but now he has signeed a contract with an unfair term. Just saying that he wouldn't have signed it had he known about the kids, doesn't make thee term fair, nor inforcable surely. He can always serve notice for when the contract is up though.

yes, exactly. although i think the OFT suggestion for redrafting the no children clause is not particularly clear cut. the OFT seems to be saying that it would be a fair term to say that no children can live in the property without LL permission which will not be unreasonably withheld.

one reading of the OFT's unfair / fair drafting of the "no children" clause is that it's not fair to say that no children can enter the property at any time, but it is fair to say that no children can live in the property as long as there is a cogent reason. i suppose a court would have to decide whether it was reasonable to withhold permission because the LL didn't want any more than 2 people living the property.