CCTV being used in communal areas and threatened with court action

eddddy

Jumblebumble said:

eddddy said:

silvercar said:

“ one rule is children can’t play in the communal area.” I would consider that an unfair contract term. Saying children need to be supervised is one thing, saying they can’t play in a communal area strikes me as unenforceable.

I'm not so sure. It's very standard for lease covenants to be very specific about what communal areas can be used for. (e.g. just for walking across to gain access to flats, etc.)

The legal argument would probably be that the OP had the opportunity to read the lease (and get advice from their solicitor) before buying the leasehold flat. And if the OP didn't like the terms of the lease, they shouldn't have bought it.


And the fact that the landlord is planning enforcement action suggests that another leaseholder has complained that it's causing them annoyance.

Landlords don't generally take enforcement action for no reason.

Let me correct this for you
The Caretaker has apparently claimed that the building mananger who is presumably  not the Landlord is going to take action.
Who knows if the caretaker is making up fairy stories?

I think it's really important to be accurate in these forums.

There is absolutely nothing in my post that is incorrect.

You have an alternative suggestion - that the caretaker is making-up fairy stories. You are completely free to make suggestions like that.

However, if the OP goes with your suggestion, and it turns out to be wrong - it could potentially cost the OP hundreds of pounds.



You don't seem to understand about leases and "Landlords" and "Building Managers", etc. If you are genuinely keen to know more, I will happily explain.

GDB2222

I love the argument that the service charge is £X per year, so we can do whatever we want.

MultiFuelBurner

justwhat said:

What about the House holders that don't want kids running around/playing in the communal area?

Have they just too put up with it? Maybe they moved to the property because it had that rule?

This is a fair point and something parents with not comprehend..why can't little Harry and Megan play all day where they want to.

MultiFuelBurner

GDB2222 said:

I love the argument that the service charge is £X per year, so we can do whatever we want.

Ah, we have paid to ignore all the rules👍

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I thought age was a protected characteristic, shouldn’t the lease prevent anyone from “playing” in this communal area, or am I misunderstanding the discrimination rules? 

sheramber

Perhaps the landlord is going to clamp down on the other rule breakers as well.

Perhaps the market Hall underneath have complained about  disturbance from the children playing.

As you do not have first hand information you don't know what has caused it.

Why would he photograph the CCTV screen?  The system will be transmitting   pictures to somewhere. Who monitors the CCTV?

CSI_Yorkshire

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I thought age was a protected characteristic, shouldn’t the lease prevent anyone from “playing” in this communal area, or am I misunderstanding the discrimination rules? 

You're misunderstanding the discrimination rules.

They don't mean that you can't use a protected characteristic as a determining factor, they just mean you have to have a legitimate and defensible reason for it.

Age-related ticket pricing (old and young) or only providing free bus passes to people over a certain age are both discrimination and unlawful under your interpretation, but in reality they are not.

It also doesn't apply to every situation anyway - it was primarily employment in its first drafts.  Taken to an absurd extreme, it's not age discrimination if your friends are all over 30.

elsien

Can I just point out that sex offender does not automatically equate to paedophile. And a low risk sex offender may be someone who has been looking at stuff on the Internet, but is not a direct risk to anyone in person. And may have only received a caution as opposed to being convicted of a crime. Just to put it into perspective.

user1977

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I thought age was a protected characteristic, shouldn’t the lease prevent anyone from “playing” in this communal area, or am I misunderstanding the discrimination rules? 

Probably the latter, and anyway I can't see it being relevant unless you've got some playing adults who are getting away with it.

eddddy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I thought age was a protected characteristic, shouldn’t the lease prevent anyone from “playing” in this communal area, or am I misunderstanding the discrimination rules? 

I suspect that the lease doesn't mention the word "children".  Otherwise it would mean Adults could play football, cricket, etc on the deck.

The lease might specifically prohibit the playing of games...

... but I think it's more likely to say something like the deck is for the use of leaseholders to access their properties only.


So playing games, having bbqs, having birthday parties, doing Karaoke nights, storing bikes, storing old fridges, etc on the deck, would all be breaches of the lease.



It might be helpful if the OP posted the relevant clauses in the lease (but there might be multiple clauses that need to be read together).