Help with unfair eviction asap!

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Not at all. Many landlords provide a basic service as described because it negates a tenancy and the protection that affords. For running a vacuum over a carpet once in a blue moon it's a pretty good deal.

Now Uve lost me again. If the LL lives on site, then the op is a lodger and ur right.

If not then the LL shouldn't even be entering the home.

But are u talking England and Wales. NI has different laws

Can u quote a law to me surrounding this?

Genuinely it's either very obscure or you've misunderstood

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

Now Uve lost me again. If the LL lives on site, then the op is a lodger and ur right.

If not then the LL shouldn't even be entering the home.

But are u talking England and Wales. NI has different laws

Can u quote a law to me surrounding this?

Genuinely it's either very obscure or you've misunderstood

England and Wales.

With shared accommodation, and a non resident LL, If the contract stipulates that the landlord provides certain services which negate exclusive occupation, it's not a tenancy.

To be a tenancy, you must pay rent, for a specified period and have exclusive occupation.

If the contract states that the LL provides, for example, a cleaner to clean your room once a month, you don't have exclusive occupation and, as a result, you don't have a tenancy.

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

England and Wales.

With shared accommodation, and a non resident LL, If the contract stipulates that the landlord provides certain services which negate exclusive occupation, it's not a tenancy.

To be a tenancy, you must pay rent, for a specified period and have exclusive occupation.

If the contract states that the LL provides, for example, a cleaner to clean your room once a month, you don't have exclusive occupation and, as a result, you don't have a tenancy.

Can u link a specific law?

I ask because contract can't overrule statute. So this cleaner could be deemed harassment, the opposite if what ur suggesting

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

Can u link a specific law?

Well, Street v Mountford defined what IS a tenancy (exclusive possession of land / property, at a rent and for a term) and, by default, what ISN'T. So, if you don't have exclusive possession, or don't pay rent, or have a tenancy term, then you don't have a tenancy.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

I ask because contract can't overrule statute. So this cleaner could be deemed harassment, the opposite if what ur suggesting

Sorry, missed the edit.

Contract cannot over-rule statute, agreed. But if the cleaner is in the contract and you agree the contract, it ain't a tenancy, and it ain't harassment.

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Well, Street v Mountford defined what IS a tenancy (exclusive possession of land / property, at a rent and for a term) and, by default, what ISN'T. So, if you don't have exclusive possession, or don't pay rent, or have a tenancy term, then you don't have a tenancy.

So far I agree. It's quite clear from the various acts of parliament too.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Sorry, missed the edit.

Contract cannot over-rule statute, agreed. But if the cleaner is in the contract and you agree the contract, it ain't a tenancy, and it ain't harassment.

The contract could say the ll can sleep with my wife every 3rd Sunday of the month, doesn't make it valid or nullify my tenancy. Ok a better example:

The property comes with a garden. The LL pays for a gardener to come round to maintain it. Still a tenancy.

I think the debate here is - u say that T doesn't have sole exclusive rights because of the cleaner ( for example ), I say he does and your cleaner is only there with the T permission. Implied in the contract, withdraw able as per quiet enjoyment ( court yada yada )

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

The contract could say the ll can sleep with my wife every 3rd Sunday of the month, doesn't make it valid or nullify my tenancy. Ok a better example:

The property comes with a garden. The LL pays for a gardener to come round to maintain it. Still a tenancy.

I think the debate here is - u say that T doesn't have sole exclusive rights because of the cleaner ( for example ), I say he does and your cleaner is only there with the T permission. Implied in the contract, withdraw able as per quiet enjoyment ( court yada yada )

So every hotel booking grants a tenancy?

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

So every hotel booking grants a tenancy?

Ah spot on, no it doesn't. But comes under different laws

Hotel proprietors act 1956

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

Ah spot on, no it doesn't. But comes under different laws

Hotel proprietors act 1956

Touche. Not very familiar with hotel rules, regs and legislation. But you get the point. If the contract and actions don't constitute a tenancy, then it isn't a tenancy and doesn't attract the protection a tenancy affords. Merely ignoring the contract doesn't grant exclusive possession and, as a result, doesn't create a tenancy.

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Touche. Not very familiar with hotel rules, regs and legislation. But you get the point. If the contract and actions don't constitute a tenancy, then it isn't a tenancy and doesn't attract the protection a tenancy affords. Merely ignoring the contract doesn't grant exclusive possession and, as a result, doesn't create a tenancy.

I see your point, and like I said, I don't think your necessarily wrong. But I do think that the circumstances are rare, especially when the ll is not resident. And there's a lock on the door.

A tenancy can be created in law alone. For example I move into a flat, sign nothing. Pay rent and the LL accepts rent. I am a tenant ( maybe not the smartest tenant!).

So whilst I agree about exclusive rights, I am not sure that a cleaner would constitute this.

The theory behind it is interesting tho