Can landlord restrict size of TV I use?

I_have_spoken

It's all me, me, me! with some people.

Guest101

Kayalana99 wrote: »

I think this is wrong. If you signed a contract to agree to something then you've signed it & agreed (I assume by your comment about even if its in the tenancy agreement that it is)

It's def not ethical, and makes you wonder why the hell not tbh....but you would be breaking your contract if you had one over 21 inchs, again, assuming its in their.

He can't dictact to you what he wants you to do with your own space in general, but if its their in black & white although this might be the extreme way of looking at it...its like disallowing pets to stay, even though its your space the LL has the right to not allow them.

The LL is still powerless even if you have agreed, the LL needs to prove a loss by your breach, and that would be difficult to prove. Even no pets clauses are very difficult to prove a loss over.

Also how would the LL even know? They cant just go into his privately rented accomodation.

Guest101

!!!!!! wrote: »

To follow up. You will basically have the rights and limitations mentioned on the licence and if one of the conditions is that TVs are limited in size then you, having read and signed as agreeing to the licence, are bound by it.

That's not accurate. The LL needs to prove a loss by this breach, and clearly the loss would be minimal and very difficult to prove

Guest101

SideB wrote: »

Thanks, in regards to the TV, is that the case even if they mention it in rules which are referred to in the tenancy agreement?

You said that I coudn't be evicted until the initial term passes, but if I do break part of the agreement, does that not entitle them to evict me?

It is a private company.

Thanks

Not likely, it is possible, but the judge would have to decide and its incredibly unlikely, given the loss would be so difficult to prove.

How would they know anyway? just dont let them into your room

Guest101

theartfullodger wrote: »

Careful: You say "Halls of residence". Under Housing Act 1988 Schedule 1 clause 8 (I think..) some lettings to students cannot be (may not be) "assured tenancies" and as such cannot, may not be, ASTs... (AST a special form of AT).

So please tell us what sort of tenancy agreement you have first (it should say at the top). And name of landlord (eg "University of AnyTown, Lettings department"). You might find you have few rights & can easily be booted out.

Having said that a landlord CAN (anyway - eg for AST or AT tenancies) apply for a possession order during fixed term for breach of tenancy: However suspect most Judges would not evict for having a small, kept-quiet, tele..

Cheers!

(Oopps - wot !!!!!! said...)

OP said its a privte company so I presume it is just a specialist LL

zerog

I don't think I ever signed anything when moving into my university halls, maybe my parents did, though we paid the entire rent for each term upfront. We made some house rules but they were agreed by everyone in the corridor and the warden stuck them up on the noticeboard, that was as far as it went.

I guess private halls may be slightly different. There was a threat to prevent graduation if anything went wrong, which private halls can't really do.

littlesparkles

Just throwing this in here: could the university punish you for breaking their rules? E.g. Kick you off your course?

I don't think it's likely over something as petty as TV size but then again there may be someone like you employed to police the rules in the halls of residence!

princeofpounds

Wow there is a lot of ill-informed advice on the thread today, mixed up with the good stuff.

As some posters have pointed out, you need to be sure of the basis of your tenancy. Some halls of residence operate under a different legal regime, if they are university-owned. They can still be privately run.

This would not make the clause any more enforceable, but it would reduce your rights in case they decided to do something arbitrary like end your occupation or interfere with your course progression (would be over the top, but you never know).

If however you are on an AST then it's much more straightforward. The clause is meaningless.

Clauses in a contract do not bind you like a law. If there is a breach of contract, then you can be sued. But to sue someone, as pointed out, you need to demonstrate material loss or damage. A court would never entertain such nonsense as issuing orders over the size of TVs.

The landlord could also ask the court for possession of the property using a section 8 procedure, using ground 12 breach of contract. The courts take evictions very seriously; they would never entertain depriving someone of their home for nonsense like this.

There is obviously the practical sense of nonsense, but there is also a legal aspect to it. This clause would almost certainly be classified as an unfair term in a consumer contract, which makes it legally unenforceable. There is too large an imbalance when a landlord tries to interfere with a tenant's quiet enjoyment of a property by dictating their lifestyles and possessions in aspects that cannot possibly be relevant to the performance of the tenancy.

If you like, google 'OFT unfair terms tenancy agreements' for a handbook explaining the whole concept.

Furthermore, having a 30" TV vs a 21" one would probably be classified as a legal 'trifle' not worth bothering a court with, so courts can dismiss claims because they are nonsense in practice as well as legal nonsense. There's a phrase for it, but I can't remember off the top of my head

propertyman

In a small student room with a 50" tv ..

My Mum would have said " You'll get Square Eyes":rotfl:

SideB

Thank you everyone - to clarify it is an AST!