Asked to remove bike from balcony - rights?

Lunchbox

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

But do they specify you cant put anything on the railings of the balcony? I am interpreting your comment about obscuring the glass as meaning "Not to put anything up on the inside of the window inside the flat".

I'm talking about a different location - that isn't inside the flat.

I am recalling when I lived in a rented flat with balcony that there were restrictions about what could be kept inside the flat (ie no pets and no calor gas heaters). There was one restriction about the balcony and that specificied "No clothes lines on the balcony". That's the only balcony specification I can recall and it was the tenants association themselves who suggested I interpret that as meaning "No clotheslines to be visible as being on balconies" and suggested I put in a clothesline on the balcony that would run along beneath the top of the balcony wall (ie no-one could see it from elsewhere). I did that and there was never any problems. I think that must be what other tenants did too - as I never spotted any clotheslines or clotheshorses.

Not to 'install any fencing screening or tall planting so as to divide up or obscure the visibility of or from such patio balcony or terrace'.

Several neighbours have been made to remove the bamboo type screening.

We also have not to 'dry washing on the patio balcony or terrace' and not to 'construct any sheds or other storage structures or store any items including but not limited to bicycles boxes or rubbish on the patio balcony or terrace'.

DandelionPatrol

princeofpounds wrote: »

Legally that is totally incorrect logic. An unfair clause in a contract doesn't mean it is literally unfair. It means that it falls foul of unfair clauses in consumer contracts legislation. If it does, for all intents and purposes that clause does not exist. Bit hard for something to be non-existent and binding.


Now, although I very much doubt it is the case, I am not claiming that unknown head lease terms cannot be binding. But a clause in a contract cannot be both unfair (in the legal sense) and binding.

I don't think you have fully grasped this.

The problem is that a requirement in a head lease very much does exist. And even if it is not explicit in any sublease, it is very much enforceable even on sub-lessees. What would be unfair is, as franklee explained, is to give sub-lessees conditions for which the specifics are not made sufficiently explicit before the sub-lessee signs up.

Of course, the LL could just omit such conditions from the sub-lease. This would neatly avoid unfair conditions - but would leave the tenant still subject to binding conditions from clauses in another lease which to the sub-lessee are effectively non-existent.

silvercar

Of course, the LL could just omit such conditions from the sub-lease. This would neatly avoid unfair conditions - but would leave the tenant still subject to binding conditions from clauses in another lease which to the sub-lessee are effectively non-existent.

Can the tenant be bound by conditions they are not aware of?

His_Dudeness

OP is bound by the terms of his tenancy, and his landlord is bound by the terms of his lease.

If the terms of the head lease are not included in OP's tenancy he is not bound by them. That's a common oversight when letting flats.

The question on the legal side is to know what restrictions are in fact in the head lease.

On the practical side, OP should in any case think about his aim. If he wishes to stay in the flat surely it would be wise not to make waves and to keep good relations with his landlord, and not to aggrieve the management company.

Perhaps a good start would be to make the bike's presence as discreet as possible and see what happens.

DandelionPatrol

His_Dudeness wrote: »

If the terms of the head lease are not included in OP's tenancy he is not bound by them.

That is basic contract law. But he is bound under property law. And property law trumps contract law in this situation.

But enforcement against a tenant and compensation of a thwarted tenant are difficult

His_Dudeness

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

That is basic contract law. But he is bound under property law. And property law trumps contract law in this situation.

Nothing 'trumps' anything.

For a subtenant to be legally bound by the terms of the head lease there must be an explicit agreement, e.g. by referencing the head lease in the subtenant's tenancy agreement.

However, in any case the subtenant should keep in mind that:
- Doing anything resulting in the head lease being forfeit would in turn lead to his own eviction.
- An assured shorthold tenant can easily be evicted with the need for any formal ground.

DandelionPatrol

His_Dudeness wrote: »

Nothing 'trumps' anything.

For a subtenant to be legally bound to the terms of the head lease there must be an explicit agreement, e.g. by referencing the head lease in the subtenant's tenancy agreement.

However, in any case the subtenant should keep in mind that:
- Doing anything resulting in the head lease being forfeit would in turn lead to his own eviction.
- An assured shorthold tenant can easily be evicted with the need for any formal ground.

If the head landlord goes to court against the head tenant, the head tenant is left with an injunction which he has little power to enforce other than eviction.

Worse, the head tenant could forfeit the property in the extreme, which would lead to the subtenant being evicted on about 8 weeks notice. So much for contract rights.

Of course, it would not come to that, because someone would see sense and back down.

When I say property law trumps contract law, I cannot think of a better word than 'trumps'

hyperpringle

I've made the bike as discreet as possible on the balcony and will await any further letters. I don't want this to escalate any further or ruin the good relationship I have with my landlady, so will discuss with her if I receive a follow up letter.

I've been in the property 4 years and although I say I'm looking to move in a year, you never know what will happen so I don't want to burn bridges when that can be avoided. I expect my landlady will be extremely apologetic about the situation if I spoke to her and might even sort out alternative storage or compromise with managing agents. I'll keep you all posted but until then thanks for advice and shout if you strongly disagree with this approach!

princeofpounds

I don't think you have fully grasped this.

I don't think you fully grasped my point.


You are debating about whether head lease terms can be binding on a sub-tenant who has not contracted to observe them.


I am talking about unfair terms in consumer contracts and the use of the word 'unfair' in a legal sense.


These are two separate topics. My separate paragraph even makes that point.

franklee

princeofpounds wrote: »

You are debating about whether head lease terms can be binding on a sub-tenant who has not contracted to observe them.

Oddly enough this very issue has recently come up on landlordzone:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?69826-AST-tenant-and-head-lease