PDA

View Full Version : Tenant has redecorated without permission



Gloria
21-09-2011, 14:14 PM
Hello

We let our house out via a letting agent. The Tenancy Agreement is the letting agency's standard agreement. We have been told it's not an AST. The Tenancy Agreement was for 3 years with a break clause after 2 years.

The tenant is actually a company and the occupier the Director of that company and his family.

The occupiers have painted walls in a number of rooms, have erected and placed large shelving units, coat hooks and flat screen TVs on a number of walls. They have also erected a satellite dish. The property had been painted just before they moved in. These changes were made without our permission or knowledge but were revealed to us following 2 formal inspections by the letting agent.

We have now appointed a new letting agent.

Is there anything we can do to prevent the occupiers making further changes? What should we do to ensure that the occupiers return our property to it's original condition when they vacate?

We have been advised to issue a Section 146 notice. Could anyone give us any advice on pros and cons of this approach please. Also would we need to issue a LVT before we could issue a Section 146 notice?

thanks

Gloria

Snorkerz
21-09-2011, 14:35 PM
Why is this not an AST? Is the rent in excess of £100k?

Usual rules are that what the tenant does whilst they live in the property is fine, so long a the property is returned to you in the same condition it was let in (less fair wear and tear). If it isn't, you claim against the deposit or sue for damages.

It is possible they don't want to look at your colour choice every day for the next 365.

Gloria
21-09-2011, 14:47 PM
Not sure it isn't an AST but that's what a solicitor told us, no the rent isn't in excess of £100k per annum.

Maybe they didn't want to look at our colour choice but then maybe they should have gained written permission as required by the lease!

It's beginning to sound like we will need to claim against the deposit/sue for damages at the end of the tenancy (minus fair wear and tear).

MrJohnnyB
21-09-2011, 14:49 PM
Issue a section 146 notice on a residential let?! Good luck with that... let me know how it goes...

Does the residential area form part of a commercial building? Ie is it occupied in conjunction with a shop/office/factory?

I honestly think you're really going to be "pissing in the wind" is the professional term I like to use. I think any court would state forfeiture was far too draconian a measure for what could be considered unauthroised tenant improvements - such improvements which you require your consent - although such consent is to not be unreasonably withheld.

jjlandlord
21-09-2011, 14:50 PM
Why is this not an AST? Is the rent in excess of £100k?

OP stated that tenant is a company.

Snorkerz
21-09-2011, 15:13 PM
OP stated that tenant is a company.Aha - missed that.

Lawcruncher
21-09-2011, 15:34 PM
Pretty pointless to take any formal action now. Simply remind the tenant of the terms of the tenancy agreement. What the tenant has done does not strike me as that unreasonable given that the tenancy is for three years. Is the property well kept?

Gloria
21-09-2011, 15:40 PM
Issue a section 146 notice on a residential let?! Good luck with that... let me know how it goes...

Does the residential area form part of a commercial building? Ie is it occupied in conjunction with a shop/office/factory?

I honestly think you're really going to be "pissing in the wind" is the professional term I like to use. I think any court would state forfeiture was far too draconian a measure for what could be considered unauthroised tenant improvements - such improvements which you require your consent - although such consent is to not be unreasonably withheld.

The tenant is a company but it is a residential property. No the property is not occupied in conjuntion with an office/factory or shop.

If issuing a notice under section 146 isn't going to help us/be detrimental in this situation we don't want to issue it - that's why I am asking for suggestions/help. The tenant hasn't carried out imrovements the property was in an excellent condition when it was let. We aren't looking for forfeiture just trying to stop the tenant making further changes and returning the property to its orginal state at the end of the tenancy.

If the general consensus is there isn't really very much we can do until the tenancy ends then we will accept that.

MrJohnnyB
21-09-2011, 15:41 PM
The tenant is a company but it is a residential property. No the property is not occupied in conjuntion with an office/factory or shop.

If issuing a notice under section 146 isn't going to help us/be detrimental in this situation we don't want to issue it - that's why I am asking for suggestions/help. The tenant hasn't carried out imrovements the property was in an excellent condition when it was let. We aren't looking for forfeiture just trying to stop the tenant making further changes and returning the property to its orginal state at the end of the tenancy.

If the general consensus is there isn't really very much we can do until the tenancy ends then we will accept that.

A section 146 notice is a notice to bring the tenancy to an end by forfeiture for breaches of covenant other than rent. Sorry I have re-read my original post and it does sound somewhat rude so apologies! I just honestly think you could waste serious money and do nothing but bring illfeeling between the parties.

Gloria
21-09-2011, 15:43 PM
Ok thanks. The tenant has been reminded of the terms of the tenancy agreement. The property is generally being well kept apart from the garden which has become severely overgrown, the garden was in a very good state when the tenancy started.

Sorry this was a reply to Lawcruncher

Gloria
21-09-2011, 15:50 PM
A section 146 notice is a notice to bring the tenancy to an end by forfeiture for breaches of covenant other than rent. Sorry I have re-read my original post and it does sound somewhat rude so apologies! I just honestly think you could waste serious money and do nothing but bring illfeeling between the parties.

No problem - we don't want to waste any more money or create further ill feeling. Thanks all I think we have our answer - we will review the situation when the tenancy comes to an end.

There is one other issue the tenant is refusing to allow us to visit. The property was rented out from 3 November 2010. We haven't visited the property during that period. The letting agent did undertake 2 inspections both of these were instigated by the letting agent - not us. Can the tenant continue to refuse us access?