tenants agreement is this normal ?

davmns001

my brother has just had to sign a tenants agreement following his divorce. nothing strange in that but I have seen the papers and the restrictions seem stacked in the landlords favour to quite an extent.
I dont think the landlord is keen on him remaining at the place but cant just get him out and so this could be the lever. what do you think?
the agreement states that
not share the property with another person.
not have any visitor for more than three weeks.
not have any keys made for the property without permission.
not keep any vehicle without tax
not keep any boat, caravan, trailer, commercial vehicle, hut or Shed
not fix any sign or poster or other thing to the property inside or outside walls
not keep any pet, animal, bird, reptile, fish, insects or the like.
not allow any children to live at the property with out the landlords consent.
not play any radio or device between 10-7 that can be hear outside.
not change the utility supplier or have or change the telephone number. neither was installed/connected when he moved in and he had to conect them.
not leave the property vacant for more than 28days.
and to keep the property in a clean tenantable condition and repair and decorative order. and then it goes onto say he may not change and paint colours.
not alter the gardens character and keep it neat and tidy, mow the lawns and prune the trees.
all the other restriction seem usual but the above seem to give the landlords unfair footing against the tenant, ap the other tenants (landlord has two more houses at the road have been there a lot less a time than him and they have none of these.
the children and pets one is the one that raises the eyes! and the garden as he is a keen gardener and is always changing and altering the garden always with great taste and care.
my brother having been there since the mid 90s. and has his children almost all the time in the holidays and most weekends. and also now has one of them living with him. as for visitors what if he has guests stay for holidays ? as he also goes away for long periods when he can and stays with folk over sea and returns the favour.

Marvel1

davmns001 wrote: »

my brother has just had to sign a tenants agreement following his divorce. nothing strange in that but I have seen the papers and the restrictions seem stacked in the landlords favour to quite an extent.
I dont think the landlord is keen on him remaining at the place but cant just get him out and so this could be the lever. what do you think?
the agreement states that
not share the property with another person.
not have any visitor for more than three weeks.
not have any keys made for the property without permission.
not keep any vehicle without tax
not keep any boat, caravan, trailer, commercial vehicle, hut or Shed
not fix any sign or poster or other thing to the property inside or outside walls
not keep any pet, animal, bird, reptile, fish, insects or the like.
not allow any children to live at the property with out the landlords consent.
not play any radio or device between 10-7 that can be hear outside.
not change the utility supplier or have or change the telephone number. neither was installed/connected when he moved in and he had to conect them.
not leave the property vacant for more than 28days.
and to keep the property in a clean tenantable condition and repair and decorative order. and then it goes onto say he may not change and paint colours.
not alter the gardens character and keep it neat and tidy, mow the lawns and prune the trees.
all the other restriction seem usual but the above seem to give the landlords unfair footing against the tenant, ap the other tenants (landlord has two more houses at the road have been there a lot less a time than him and they have none of these.
the children and pets one is the one that raises the eyes! and the garden as he is a keen gardener and is always changing and altering the garden always with great taste and care.
my brother having been there since the mid 90s. and has his children almost all the time in the holidays and most weekends. and also now has one of them living with him. as for visitors what if he has guests stay for holidays ? as he also goes away for long periods when he can and stays with folk over sea and returns the favour.

Surely your brother can change supplier as he is the one paying the bill, and may find a cheaper one.

sequence

The utility supplier one is unenforceable.

davmns001

I would have thought most was unfair. but this is my first experience of it. I can understand the Tax vehicle but shed, hut ? seems steep also animals and children.
his prev contract had non of these restrictions as we have compaired and thats what raised the question.
also what about him meeting another partner has he to ask the land lords permission. (certainly reads that way)

tbs624

Google OFT and Unfair Contract Terms in tenancy agreements for guidance.

LL cannot arbitrarily place restrictions on visitor stays - T is entitled to use the property as his home and that includes having people to stay temporarily. Unless LL is paying for the utility bills, those are a matter between supplier and T and T should ensure that full info on provider is handed over with final meter readings.

The clause about not leaving the property empty for more than 28 days should state "for not more than 28 days without notifying the LL" . That is a resoanble clause because the LL in turn will be obliged to notify his insurers that the property will be vacant

On your comments about your brother and his gardening skills " as he is a keen gardener and is always changing and altering the garden always with great taste and care.", your brother has to understand that if he is renting a property he may not change the garden without the LL's consent. That's a pretty reasonable requirement under a tenancy agreement.

If you or your brother are concerned about any clauses then get them checked over by the local Tenancy Relations Officer or another experienced LL&T adviser. The best time would, of course, have been prior to signing up.

davmns001

tbs624 wrote: »

Google OFT and Unfair Contract Terms in tenancy agreements for guidance.

LL cannot arbitrarily place restrictions on visitor stays - T is entitled to use the property as his home and that includes having people to stay temporarily. Unless LL is paying for the utility bills, those are a matter between supplier and T and T should ensure that full info on provider is handed over with final meter readings.

The clause about not leaving the property empty for more than 28 days should state "for not more than 28 days without notifying the LL" . That is a resoanble clause because the LL in turn will be obliged to notify his insurers that the property will be vacant

On your comments about your brother and his gardening skills " as he is a keen gardener and is always changing and altering the garden always with great taste and care.", your brother has to understand that if he is renting a property he may not change the garden without the LL's consent. That's a pretty reasonable required under a tenancy agreement.

If you or your brother are concerned about any clauses then get them checked over by the local Tenancy Relations Officer or another experienced LL&T adviser. The best time would, of course, have been prior to signing up.

can understand that, but. he did not sign up freely thats my point he was from what I can gather put on a spot to sign. the options being to leave his home of over ten years. the LL has only been the sole owner of the property for a short while, prior to that he was a junior partner in the estate that owned it. and ap had very little if any to do with C & S.
I would have thought it would have been a same contract as previous not one with many more limitations in it.
and his rental was set lower than the other houses as his connection with the estate/farms was taken into view. that having changed now. it was not a tied house but he did work for them. now being semi retired due to reduced health.
I myself would have moved away and started again but I am not him. and he is not the type to ask or should I say has not been. plus there is the extra costs he will have to get and deal with.

if you cant change a garden without consent thats daft. why should anyone in 2011 have to ask to but in flower beds or grow veg or plant fruit trees in a garden thats not a town window box type of thing ? as he already keep some chickens and has pets I guess in law he is in breach of the agreement although he has all the years he has been there. with the LL knowing prev to the new terms.

tbs624

davmns001 wrote: »

can understand that, but. he did not sign up freely thats my point he was from what I can gather put on a spot to sign. the options being to leave his home of over ten years.

He could not have been made to leave his home without a court order being sought by the LL. No-one should ever sign a legal document that they are unsure about, without first seeking qualified advice. He could surely have asked for a copy of the agreement and done just that.

However, if the terms are ones which a court is unlikely to uphold because of unfairness to the "consumer"/T then it will be of little relevance that he has signed the contract containg those terms.

davmns001 wrote: »

I would have thought it would have been a same contract as previous not one with many more limitations in it...

The terms *can* be changed by a new contract, provided that those terms are not "unfair" - LL is entitled to serve notice for repossession or T is entitled to move on if either party is unhappy with the status quo.

You may want to remove the names mentioned in your post.:)

davmns001

tbs624 wrote: »

He could not have been made to leave his home without a court order being sought by the LL. No-one should ever sign a legal document that they are unsure about, without first seeking qualified advice. He could surely have asked for a copy of the agreement and done just that.

However, if the terms are ones which a court is unlikely to uphold because of unfairness to the "consumer"/T then it will be of little relevance that he has signed the contract containg those terms.

The terms *can* be changed by a new contract, provided that those terms are not "unfair" - LL is entitled to serve notice for repossession or T is entitled to move on if either party is unhappy with the status quo.

You may want to remove the names mentioned in your post.:)

thanks understand that. and have done.
from what I gather it was put to him this is the contract take it or leave it. and we are not talking about new tenant renting a flat as a need but some one who was and is established in his home albeit not freeheld. when put on such a spot the options to many are accept or rock the boat and many esp in rural areas are not as savvy as those in town. they tend to live with the old fashion and dated gents agreement and understanding. wrong maybe but there you are.

many thanks

R

G_M

davmns001 wrote: »

my brother has just had to sign a tenants agreement following his divorce. nothing strange in that but I have seen the papers and the restrictions seem stacked in the landlords favour to quite an extent.
I dont think the landlord is keen on him remaining at the place then why would the LL sign a new tenancy?but cant just get him out and so this could be the lever. what do you think?
the agreement states that
not share the property with another person.standard. If sharing the other person needs to be a joint tenant
not have any visitor for more than three weeks.this could give them occupancy rights (though the 3 weeks is arbitary)
not have any keys made for the property without permission.unenforcible. ignore
not keep any vehicle without tax.unenforcible. ignore - none of the LL's business
not keep any boat, caravan, trailer, commercial vehicle, hut or Shedthis could be an insurance requirement and/or restrictive covenant on the property that the LL has to comply with and/or relate to planning regulations
not fix any sign or poster or other thing to the property inside or outside wallsvery common but unenforcible. What matters is whether any damage is left when the item is removed
not keep any pet, animal, bird, reptile, fish, insects or the like.standard
not allow any children to live at the property with out the landlords consent.unenforcible. ignore
not play any radio or device between 10-7 that can be hear outside. part of a tenant's general duty not to disturb neighbours and act in a tenant-like manner
not change the utility supplier or have or change the telephone number. neither was installed/connected when he moved in and he had to conect them.unenforcible. ignore
not leave the property vacant for more than 28days. Important and standard. Probobly a condition of the LL's insurance which would become invalid if the property were unoocupied. If going away, advise the LL who may be able to keep the insurance valid by visiting/checking the property weekly - depends on the insurer though
and to keep the property in a clean tenantable condition and repair and decorative order. standardand then it goes onto say he may not change and paint colours.standard
not alter the gardens character and keep it neat and tidy, mow the lawns and prune the trees.unenforcible. ignore, however at the end of the tenancy the garden must be returned in the condition it was in at the start
........ and the garden as he is a keen gardener and is always changing and altering the garden always with great taste and care.changes to layout etc should be done only after LL's agreement in writing otherwise he may have to re-instate
.

Abide by the reasonable terms identified above (sometimes there's a good reason which may not be immediately obvious - like insurance) and ignore the others since the LL cannot enforce them or use them as a reason to evict etc.

davmns001

thanks again. the boat trailer caravan comercial vehicle one, "on looking back" is another strange one to have on new contract as C has a caravan kept elsewhere but on the drive when season allows and being used. he used to have a small boat. and has a trailer and Comercial ?? (ford van) he is a gardener/handyman and has it for his work. why add this when you know fully and in past its not there in print?
I can see now looking into it all why its been wearing him down. and what I thought was just un-ness worry starts to look strange. after all it is as said before a rural cottage/house not a flat in town.
when they moved in it had only a butler sink, expensive electric heating and a dire bath room, Chipped bath very small basin and old WC. the estate was not prepared to have it all brought upto date and only supplied the basics, as most country tenanted property is,
part of the "its good enough for the workers" mindset, and their rent reflected it. but made it clear they had no proplem with him doing what they wished. so to make it more comfortable and also cheaper to heat/run they over time changed quite a lot. all for the better we think. even the walls was white washed and thin foam backed carpet "nylon YUK" everywhere.
as to the garden it was a tip when he first moved in with one small shed and "chicken wire fence" if it could be called that 30" high. so they changed it greatly and for the better. just as I would if I had to live there after all its their home. plus no objection was raised.
and now that its a home the future is uncertain for him. plus of course it may fetch greater rental now than before. the other houses are comfortable but quite dire. as most rented places seem. almost the same as theirs was in the 90s, and the tenants stay 3years on averags and have to be decorated etc each time its empty, so I guess they would be.

I would have thought he was safe as he has always looked after it and its been problem free to them before, but he feels otherwise. to buy is out of the question at his age (over50) and council is not a real option in his present circumstances.

will see him next week and have a closer look into it and get some more details.

thanks again for your inputs

R

davmns001

theartfullodger wrote: »

You mention "workers" & "the estate"... wo wo wo, rewind,.,, Is this a tenancy from his employer?? If so rules is different from normal AST.. (and it is in Engerland/Wlaes??)

no he was always self employed so not a house with job sorry if it was there would be no problem he would be better off I am sure.
but I have seen and known quite a few folk who have farm owned cottages and houses, (most around here are or had been at some point) and I can tell you they are quite dire compared with the town property we see. how they can keep the carpets and house clean when there is no concrete path amazes me and they all have electric heating and many coal cookers/fires as the main source of heating. very romantic but heavens only knows at what cost.
C has coal cooker and low watt lights and what I would call no real heating in and I beleive he spends around £40 each week. and about £20 in summer. taking into account he is hardly ever there thats a lot to me. and from what I hear thats the norm for the houses. then his council tax is £1400 PA. no wonder he worries.
some of the ones I am looking at are majour projects to get to modern standards but thats the joy for some of us. just feel sorry for those who cant.