Overnight Visitor in rented accommodation.

jjlandlord

My point is that a guest staying 1 night is most likely OK, but if (s)he stays longer there may be valid issues and such a clause places the liability for these issues on the tenant.
It is therefore unwise to make blanket statements that tenants can just ignore the clause altogether.

V_Chic_Chick wrote: »

Shelter (p.2) reckons it's a form of harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/23382/Harassment20and20antisocial20behaviour20EW2202D20harassment20and20illegal20eviction.pdf

They did not write that such a clause is harassment.

V_Chic_Chick wrote: »

AFAIK anyone who's living together as man and wife counts as one household for HMO purposes, so effectively one person.

Clearly one household is not the same as one person, though it can be deemed so in specific cases (number of rooms for overcrowding purposes).
In any case, one cannot assume that a guest will be living there as "husband and wife" with the tenant...

I believe HMO licenses can restrict the number of occupiers because of overall consideration (number of toilets, etc.).
In addition for overcrowding purposes, the starting point is the number of persons sleeping at the property, so a guest would be included.

As the landlord has a legal duty (with penalties) not to permit overcrowding, the clause in OP's agreement is essentially a must-have, IMHO.

G_M

As v chick chic points out above, the OFT says:

Table 4.2: Examples of potentially
unreasonable prohibitions

.............
Against having guests overnight.

This is normal use and enjoyment of the property on an occasional basis.

If the LL wanted to legitimately restrict occupancy (eg to comply with HMO rules), he should draft the clause in such a way as to a) make it clear why and b) only restrict to the extent required (by HMO rules for example, which do not impose a blanket 'no guests' prohibition).

We object to terms in tenancy agreements that impose obligations or restrictions that are or can be wholly unreasonable, or that give the landlord the power to make unreasonable conditions. Our objections apply even if such a term does not always operate wholly unreasonably in all circumstances. There is less risk of unfairness where a term's scope is limited to the problem it is designed to prevent or resolve.

jjlandlord

There is no need to explain why a clause is included. The clause referred to by OP is not a blanket prohibition.

The problem of overcrowding is linked to the number of persons sleeping at the property, as already pointed out. The clause is specifically about guests remaining overnight.

I think I made my point clear enough that it is not wise to make blanket statements that such clauses are void.
Go on arguing to the contrary if you wish by providing partial quotes of what could potentially be unfair...

DigForVictory

It really does swing on who else is in the property.
The learned may say all they like, but in a flat or house share, a polite but brutally clear understanding on visiting significant others saves loads of fuss. (A seperate treaty on visiting family members was also blinking useful.)

If any others know X will be around for the night, will use your bathtowels & toiletries, & you're eating either in your room or at a specific time, it's all loads easier. If other is cooking a communal meal at 7 for all as are peckish & you are washing up all pans involved & any plates etc after, the relationship may well have the full blessing of all under the roof.

If due to employment situation, other is lurking at all hours & effectively an additional housemate (it has happened, may you be spared!) then things can get unpleasant quickly.
Best of luck!