Guests sleeping over.

Barny1979

Beth22 wrote: »

I asked my solicitor to examine the tenancy agreement, his advise was that my tenant could in fact have a visitor\visitors stay for 7 days after which she would require my permission, which she did not request. By continuing to allow further stays she was in fact breaking the tenancy agreement to which she was a signotary, and if she did not understand the agreement then she should have taken prior advise.
I had printed off and showed the remarks you made, he was quite surprised and disgusted at the bile and vilification, but as he said, barrack room lawyers hiding behind a pc screen, what do you expect.

Advice not Advise by the way.

Maybe I've missed it, but thought nobody had ever stayed more than 7 continuous days?

G_M

Beth22 wrote: »

I asked my solicitor to examine the tenancy agreement, his advise was that my tenant could in fact have a visitor\visitors stay for 7 days after which she would require my permission, which she did not request. By continuing to allow further stays she was in fact breaking the tenancy agreement to which she was a signotary,
All true. That is what the contract says and that is what the tenant agreed

and if she did not understand the agreement then she should have taken prior advise. If the tenant read it (many don't) then it seems unlikely she would not have understood it, but yes, if she did not understand then taking legal advice would be the sensible legal response.
Sadly in practical terms, tenants have minimal chance of changing ana agreement, and tend not to want to pay for (asuming they can afford) such advice.

But none of the above addresses the two critical issues:
1) if breached, how can the landlord enforce the agreement
2) although the clause is contractually agreed, is it both 'reasonable' and enforcible?

I had printed off and showed the remarks you made, he was quite surprised and disgusted at the bile and vilification, but as he said, barrack room lawyers hiding behind a pc screen, what do you expect.

I may be a barrack room lawyer, and I may be behind a screen (not hiding - just I have no way to sit with you face-to-face) but I am confidant that the answers are
1) he can't, except via a S21 or S8 Notice.

2) S21 would work if served correctly and at the appropriate time- hence my questions in post 14. But that would be nothing to do with the clause in question.
S8 would have to rely on G12, and the chance of a judge using their discretion to evict on G12 in these circumstances is about 90-10 (allowing for unpredictability of judges)

However, do please come back and correct me if/when you successfully evict based on this clause, or otherwise enforce the clause (other than by relying on the tenant's own ignorance and unjustified fear of eviction - which sadly some LLs exploit)

silverwhistle

Besides, you haven't answered anybody's questions. Leaving aside the unenforceable clauses why do you object so much? Wear and tear, morals, afraid they'll run a pop up brothel?



Plus I don't see any bile or vilification, just a bit of ribald disbelief..

getmore4less

Ask the solicitor to take the enforcement/eviction on for a no win/no fee win/capped fee.

The clause is quite limited because it does not cover the various scenario single guest multiple stays, multiple guests overlapping.

I would think the best you could hope for is each guest can stay for any number of visits upto 7nights each.

As you say they are upto 3/4nights nothing to deal with yet.

Zero_Sum

Beth22 wrote: »

I asked my solicitor to examine the tenancy agreement, his advise was that my tenant could in fact have a visitor\visitors stay for 7 days after which she would require my permission, which she did not request. By continuing to allow further stays she was in fact breaking the tenancy agreement to which she was a signotary, and if she did not understand the agreement then she should have taken prior advise.
I had printed off and showed the remarks you made, he was quite surprised and disgusted at the bile and vilification, but as he said, barrack room lawyers hiding behind a pc screen, what do you expect.

If they are paying rent on time & not trashing house, why is this an issue?

ognum

As a LL I have no clue who is staying over or visiting my properties, why would I care as long as the tenant enjoys their 'home' keeps it in good repair and pays the rent.

I truly do not understand the OP and think her solicitor is taking her for a ride as I assume she is paying for his words of wisdom.

Live and let live.

HRH_MUngo

I don't understand how the OP even knows who is living in the house.

I had one tenant who must have had several other people living there - I didn't even know until she moved out and letters arrived addressed to several different names.

Even my 'model' tenant had her fiance living with her after a while and I didn't get to know about it until we were checking her out (not that I minded).

My present tenants have not been in a month yet, but I am not aware of who they have visiting, nor staying over.

So, how does the OP even know these facts?

G_M

HRH_MUngo wrote: »

...

So, how does the OP even know these facts?

Various possibilities have been sugested above!


Of course one possibility that's not been mentioned is that the tenant him (her? It?)self approached the landlord to seek clarity on the clause, or to inform the LL that he (she, it, whatever in these mad times of gender selection) was having a guest to stay for more than 7 nights and was this OK?

Murphybear

I would like to know if the OPs solicitor has specialist knowledge in landlord/tenant issues.

We had a problem some years ago with a clause in our tenancy agreement. Our landlords proudly announced they were solicitors. Our advisor was experienced in landlord/tenant issues. Without going into more detail we won the day.

As it’s Christmas Day I’ll tell you that the dispute involved a waterbed. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

G_M

Murphybear wrote: »

I would like to know if the OPs solicitor has specialist knowledge in landlord/tenant issues.

We had a problem some years ago with a clause in our tenancy agreement. Our landlords proudly announced they were solicitors. Our advisor was experienced in landlord/tenant issues. Without going into more detail we won the day.

As it’s Christmas Day I’ll tell you that the dispute involved a waterbed. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Ah! The old 'No waterbeds' clause! Ruled as infringement of tenant's right to quiet enjoyment by Lord Denning. He was full of surprises wasn't he?