Asked to remove bike from balcony - rights?

MDMD

dgtazzman wrote: »

They live right next door and they barged in today

That's against your statutory right to "quiet enjoyment" if they did just barge in. They should give you 24 hours notice.

LandyAndy

MDMD wrote: »

That's against your statutory right to "quiet enjoyment" if they did just barge in. They should give you 24 hours notice.

Dear Tenant

Please be advised that we intend to barge in at 4.00pm tomorrow.

Regards etc.

franklee

hyperpringle, I take it the management company do know the flat is let? Really they should be writing to your landlady and then she deal with you.

You cannot be bound by a document you weren't given as part of setting up the tenancy. What your landlady should have done is insert the relevant clauses from the lease into your tenancy agreement. Tough on her if she failed to do that. However as already said if you don't toe the line a section 21 notice will probably wing it's way to you at the next opportunity and then you will be on your bike.

-taff

You can be bound by it, it's the landlords responsibility to make sure you know about any proscriptive clauses.
They can write to the tenants as well as the landlord if they want to, since the tenant is the one who is contravening the lease clauses [if there is a caluse that says nothing to be kept on the balcony of course]

dgtazzman

'Barged in' might have been a bit of exaggeration, more like barged up to my door, mr and misses LL and and started questioning my personal business and calling me a liar with raised voices.

Dunno why they felt the sudden need, been nothing but pleasant towards them and have never complained when their grandson hangs round my place early in the morning playing ballgames and making a racket, which has happened a few times. Just shrug it off as boys being boys.

Think the main issue was my 'daily deliveries' (5 in the month I've been here, 1 of which had to come back a second time as I wasn't in, tried to make it clear to them they were majorly exaggerating, but I was lying, apparently). If they had just made a kind mention of it at some point, I would have gladly made arrangements just to pick the stuff up at the nearest depot, most of it was small items anyway, not my fault all the delivery companies tend to drive round in huge vans.

I have had a load of furniture delivered, I am told. In fact I've had 1 sideboard and 1 tv unit delivered flat packed, 4 small boxes. All the other stuff I already had and came with me in the van when I moved in, I've just moved it around a bit since, to make some more living room for myself, so I put it in the small conservatory area I have as I don't use it for anything. As they can see it in there from their house, they say it disturbs them... Other deliveries have been a TV sound bar, a desk chair (which I later decided not to put together yet as I'm afraid it might mark the laminate flooring), a new mobile phone and a set of pans ready for the induction hob in the house I'm in the process of buying, which came at the same time as the cutlery set I also ordered, so that was only 1 delivery.

DandelionPatrol

franklee wrote: »

You cannot be bound by a document you weren't given as part of setting up the tenancy.

Strangely, if that document is the title deeds or a head lease or any lease higher in the hierarchy than the lease for the tenancy in question, I believe it is binding. Enforcement is difficult, however ...

edwink

Just a thought but could you not disguise the bike from being there? If you have railings on the balcony could you attach a lovely large poster of some flowers or something or put some flower pots on there with some tall plants in. That way nobody would know your bike was on your balcony and the view of your balcony would probably look better.


I am just wondering if it is more to do with you taking your bike through a communal hallway or something rather than where you are putting it!!!

franklee

-taff wrote: »

You can be bound by it, it's the landlords responsibility to make sure you know about any proscriptive clauses.

Too late for that as the landlord cannot retrospectively add new terms to the tenancy agreement without the tenant allowing it.

The tenant doesn't have a contract with the management company. The tenant is bound by the clauses in his tenancy agreement. If the landlord wanted the tenant bound by terms from the lease he should have included them as part of the tenancy agreement.

That the tenancy agreement and the lease aren't in line is the landlord's headache resolvable by negotiating with the tenant or serving the tenant with a no fault section 21 notice.

Basically if a no bike clause is in the lease the landlord has screwed up by failing to make it binding on the tenant by notifying the tenant prior to the commencement of the tenancy.

franklee

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Strangely, if that document is the title deeds or a head lease or any lease higher in the hierarchy than the lease for the tenancy in question, I believe it is binding. Enforcement is difficult, however ...

That would be unfair, see OFT356, Office of Fair Trading Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements. Extracts:

page 32:

" 3.83 Landlords commonly use terms prohibiting tenants from acting in a way that affects the landlord's insurance, without explaining to the tenant what this means in practice. We object to such terms because the tenant has no way of knowing the scope of the insurance or what may affect it. These terms are not objectionable if the contract stipulates that the landlord will provide a summary of the relevant insurance requirements as part of the agreement. Similarly there is no objection to a term requiring tenants to observe the obligations of a head lease, provided the contract ensures that these obligations have been brought to their attention in sufficient time to consider them properly before entering the agreement.".

Page 89

Group 9: Binding consumers to hidden terms – paragraph 1(i) of Schedule 2

Unfair term

To perform and observe at all times during the term, the conditions and stipulations contained in the superior lease...

Way of revising term

To perform and observe at all times during the term, the conditions and stipulations contained in the superior lease that were notified to the tenant prior to the commencement of the tenancy.

DandelionPatrol

franklee wrote: »

That would be unfair, see OFT356, Office of Fair Trading Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements. Extracts:

page 32:

" 3.83 Landlords commonly use terms prohibiting tenants from acting in a way that affects the landlord's insurance, without explaining to the tenant what this means in practice. We object to such terms because the tenant has no way of knowing the scope of the insurance or what may affect it. These terms are not objectionable if the contract stipulates that the landlord will provide a summary of the relevant insurance requirements as part of the agreement. Similarly there is no objection to a term requiring tenants to observe the obligations of a head lease, provided the contract ensures that these obligations have been brought to their attention in sufficient time to consider them properly before entering the agreement.".

Page 89

Group 9: Binding consumers to hidden terms – paragraph 1(i) of Schedule 2

Unfair term

To perform and observe at all times during the term, the conditions and stipulations contained in the superior lease...

Way of revising term

To perform and observe at all times during the term, the conditions and stipulations contained in the superior lease that were notified to the tenant prior to the commencement of the tenancy.

It goes without saying that it would be unfair. I think it is both unfair and binding.

If it is in a head lease or a title, it could be enforced by a court. Indeed anyone seeking to enforce could ask a court for an order to comply against all parties in a chain to the occupier's lease.