Asked to remove bike from balcony - rights?

mr_fishbulb

PasturesNew wrote: »

My friend who had a studio room in a building that'd originally been intended to be a hotel (so it was super-tiny) used to hang his bike on the wall on two brackets. Although that means making holes in the wall, is that possible to consider doing?

Bl00dy nuisance, but rules-is-rules and if you try to fight it you'll just end up paying more agent fees/removal costs which'd be more than hiring a professional handyman and buying proper brackets, then making good when you leave.

I had one of these in one of the places I rented. Kept the bike in my room. No need for holes to be drilled - http://www.topeak.com/products/StorageAndDisplay/Dual-TouchBikeStand

DandelionPatrol

princeofpounds wrote: »

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.

Let's go back to here

princeofpounds wrote: »

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

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.

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.

The logic is fine. While an unfair condition To perform and observe at all times during the term, the conditions and stipulations contained in the superior lease... may be defaulted into non existence in the sphere of the contract, it is still as binding as it would be if it were not there in the first place - this is by virtue of the head lease.

In essence, a default on the part of the immediate Landlord to include the headlease conditions in the immediate lease does not give the ultimate subtenant licence to breach the headlease

The only difference would be the mode of enforcement. Under the AST, it could be enforced by an injunction in favour of the immediate Landlord if and only if the AST contains the relevant clauses. Under the headlease, it could be enforced by an injunction on the part of the head LL against the immediate LL, who might have a headache, but the threat of forfeiture might bring some clarity to enforcing on the immediate tenant.