Fine from landlord

duckmusic

Can a landlord legally fine you for bringing people back to your apartment ? Where i live they fine you if you bring anyone back after 12 at night without getting permission, paying a deposit etc. Is this legal ? As i see it, Im paying my rent so i should be allowed to treat the property as if it was mine, coming and going as i please and with whom i please.

Thanks in advance for any replies,

DM

MonicaBing

WTF???? Seriously?? where are you living? are you like 12 or something?? that cant be legal surely? jayziz ive never heard of that carry on before, id be advising you to go to your nearest citizens advice and querying the legality of that system. Your an adult, you pay your rent, you SHOULD be entitled to bring whomever you want back to your apartment.

Quaver

OP, I presume you have a lease, if so you might read it and it's probably all in there. If you signed this then you're bound by it, even if you didn't read it.

It sounds like you're in college accomodation, I know they did this in DCU and once you've signed the lease/agreement, you have to follow it's terms.

Our man in Havana

It may well be an unreasonable term and thus unenforceable.

drkpower

duckmusic wrote: »

Can a landlord legally fine you for bringing people back to your apartment ? Where i live they fine you if you bring anyone back after 12 at night without getting permission, paying a deposit etc. Is this legal ? As i see it, Im paying my rent so i should be allowed to treat the property as if it was mine, coming and going as i please and with whom i please.

Thanks in advance for any replies,

DM

If it's in your contract, it's in your contract. The legislation (primarily the Residential Tenancies Act 2004), states that a tenant enjoys peaceful and exclusive occupation of the dwelling but does not give any specific legislative "right to have visitors".

Therefore your contract is King and if it has such a term, you are bound by it. Also check if the contract allows a fine to be imposed in such a scenario. It seems unusual. Also, how does the landlord know that you have visitors? You do have a specific legislative right to only allow your landlord "reasonable access" and he cant just call around whenever and demand to come in to check if you have visitors so if he has being doing that, threaten to report him to the Residential Tenancies Board.

Ultimatley, its a buyers market out there so ask for a re-negotiation of your contract and threaten to leave if he doesnt agree to this term. I presume its a University? Its a very unusual term to have in a standard residential contract. However, it is not an unreasonable term for the purposes of the law.

Our man in Havana

If it's in your contract, it's in your contract.

How many times do we need to hear that old chestnut. Just because it says it in a contract does not make it enforceable. If the contract said if you are one day late with your rent the landlord can eat your first born, would that be enforceable? Of course it wouldn't. I still feel that the no visitors clause is unfair and unreasonable.

McCrack

I'm with Bond on this, onerous clauses are not enforceable.

drkpower

Bond-007 wrote: »

How many times do we need to hear that old chestnut. Just because it says it in a contract does not make it enforceable. If the contract said if you are one day late with your rent the landlord can eat your first born, would that be enforceable? Of course it wouldn't. I still feel that the no visitors clause is unfair and unreasonable.

Guys, there are lots of terms in loads of contracts that may seem "unfair" and "unreasonable" on the face of it. What the law believes to be unreasonable and unfair is an entirely different issue. Have a look at the law in this area.

It's an old chestnut because it is the basis of the law that two adults freely entering into a contract can put in that contract whatever they choose. Obviously if it violates criminal law (ie. eating one's first born), it cannot be included.

The 2004 Act was a monster piece of legislation totally overhauling the landlord-tenant relationship. The legislature could easily have included such a legislative right (in the obligations on landlords section). They chose not to do so.

drkpower

McCrack wrote: »

I'm with Bond on this, onerous clauses are not enforceable.

Onerous clauses are not enforceable?
Where did you get that from?

Agent Smith

I'm assuming your in student residence.


You prob got the fine for not signing the guest in.

Our man in Havana

Only the courts can fine you.

drkpower

Bond-007 wrote: »

Only the courts can fine you.

What??? If you are going to make these statements, especially as a moderator (although thankfully not of the legal discussion forum), you should at least attempt to back them up or clarify them.

Penalty clauses (or fines) are included in loads of contracts.....
And Gardai, litter wardens, clampers........etc.

McCrack

drkpower wrote: »

Onerous clauses are not enforceable?
Where did you get that from?

Ok granted it's a curt statement, i'll explain what I mean. Just because something is contractually agreed doesnt always means it's enforceable. In this instance the onerous clause of not allowing a tenant to bring people back after midnight and subjecting the tenant to 'a fine' may well be interpreted by a court as being onerous and not enforceable by the landlord.
I'm specifically talking about unconscionable bargains and this seems to be one. Courts can exercise their equitable jurisdiction to set aside a contract or amend it's clauses to reflect a equitable or fairer contract/lease.

I think what bond meant re the fines is that only courts can impose fines in their criminal capacity on conviction where the legislation allows. All others such as parking wardens/gardai/clampers are strictly speaking not fines in the legal sense but fixed penalty notices which the recipient has the option to pay or face prosecution. If the recipient is convicted in a court and fined he has no option but to pay or face imprisonment in default.

drkpower

McCrack wrote: »

Ok granted it's a curt statement, i'll explain what I mean. Just because something is contractually agreed doesnt always means it's enforceable. In this instance the onerous clause of not allowing a tenant to bring people back after midnight and subjecting the tenant to 'a fine' may well be interpreted by a court as being onerous and not enforceable by the landlord.
I'm specifically talking about unconscionable bargains and this seems to be one. Courts can exercise their equitable jurisdiction to set aside a contract or amend it's clauses to reflect a equitable or fairer contract/lease.

Courts can theoretically do a lot of things but there is absolutely nothing about the provision in the OP's contract that would be considered legally unfair or unreasonable.

The cases where a court tend to interfere with a contract are few and far between. Supposedly "unfair" contracts are all over the place but entirely legal - take a look at the T&C's in your average airline ticket contract or Insurance contract. That's real unfairness but its still legal!!

Suggesting that anyone in the OP's position go down the legal route (on the unfair/unreasonable term basis) would be lunacy, and expensive lunacy at that.

McCrack

drkpower wrote: »

Courts can theoretically do a lot of things but there is absolutely nothing about the provision in the OP's contract that would be considered legally unfair or unreasonable.

The cases where a court tend to interfere with a contract are few and far between. Supposedly "unfair" contracts are all over the place but entirely legal - take a look at the T&C's in your average airline ticket contract or Insurance contract. That's real unfairness but its still legal!!

Suggesting that anyone in the OP's position go down the legal route (on the unfair/unreasonable term basis) would be lunacy, and expensive lunacy at that.

Well that's a matter of interpretation whether this clause and attendant 'fine' is fair/reasonable or not. I'm leaning to say it is.

I didnt suggest the OP should go down the legal route. That's up to the landlord if he so wishes to enforce the terms of the lease but what I am saying is the OP would have a very good defence to this particular clause and penalty.

Re the standard take it or leave it contracts that you mentioned such as airlines etc check the EC Unfair Terms legislation SI 1995 and 2000 which aim to counter that unfairness.

drkpower

McCrack wrote: »

Well that's a matter of interpretation whether this clause and attendant 'fine' is fair/reasonable or not. I'm leaning to say it is.

I didnt suggest the OP should go down the legal route. That's up to the landlord if he so wishes to enforce the terms of the lease but what I am saying is the OP would have a very good defence to this particular clause and penalty.

Yes, its a matter of interpretation. But the courts have never interpreted contracts in the manner you are suggesting.

duckmusic

Thanks for all the replies. Yeah its college accommodation. Looks like there isnt much i can do about it. Thanks anyway

joxer05

No one has yet determined whether the OPs agreement is a lease or a licence to reside. As the OP lives in college accommodation, it is highly likely that the agreement signed was a licence to reside. A lease gives temporary ownership rights. A licence to reside merely gives an individual right to the enjoyment of land (i.e. property). If the OPs agreement is a licence to reside, and it contains a clause for visitors and fines etc, then it is perfectly legal for licensor to impose fines for the breach of conditions in the licence. The licensor (in this case the college authorities I presume) will often have a clause allowing them to appear at very short or no notice to investigate disturbances etc. The OP is just going to have to live with it unfortunately.

Sangre

drkpower wrote: »

The cases where a court tend to interfere with a contract are few and far between. Supposedly "unfair" contracts are all over the place but entirely legal - take a look at the T&C's in your average airline ticket contract or Insurance contract. That's real unfairness but its still legal!!

Just because something remains unchallenged doesn't mean it is legal. I don't think many consumers fancy taking on a multinational in a court room.

drkpower

Sangre wrote: »

Just because something remains unchallenged doesn't mean it is legal. I don't think many consumers fancy taking on a multinational in a court room.

On that basis, pretty much every law is not legal because it could potentially be overturned by a judge having a bad morning......

Sangre

drkpower wrote: »

On that basis, pretty much every law is not legal because it could potentially be overturned by a judge having a bad morning......

The American legal realists would certainly agree with that claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism

Legal Realists advance two general claims: 1) Law is indeterminate and judges, accordingly, must and do often draw on extralegal considerations to resolve the disputes before them. 2) The best answer to the question "What is (the) law?" is "Whatever judges or other relevant officials do".

Anyway there is a big difference between a statute law and clause in a contract that may fall foul of the law. One is the basis for law, the other is something that may fall foul of the law if it is challenged in court.

jpwicklow

Duck Music don't pay the fine and see what happens!! I had a similar problem in my campus accomodation for not waking up for a fire alarm and a second time for not informing them that i would not be there for a fire alarm. I just span them the line that i'd been to the college's free legal advice centre whom had advised me not to pay it and that to ask that it be removed from my account. they took it hook,line! Sure whats the worst that can happen you end up paying it anyways!

Jev/N

You can do it if you want but if you get caught you will be fined, it's the same for most college accommodation.

Our man in Havana

But would the college want the publicity of a court case?

Jev/N

Bond-007 wrote: »

But would the college want the publicity of a court case?

I don't think someone would chance bringing it to court TBH, all the rules and regulations are clearly stated in the license to reside which obviously must be signed by the licensee. If anyone wants to break them and run the risk of being caught, they will suffer the consequences, fine or revocation of the license by the college

In most situations when you meet with the authorities regarding an infraction of the license, you are invited to bring a solicitor along to argue your case

Sangre

Is it a license though? Any covenants referring to exclusive and peaceful enjoyment don't belong in a license. I doubt they can terminate the 'license' whenever they want either. If the college authorities are prevented from just randomly entering whenever on the face of the contract any courts may be reluctant to classify it as a license, especially it is quite clearly an attempt to avoid the rights and obligations of a landlord/tenant situation.

Jev/N

Well when I signed mine a few years ago it was titled "license to reside". You can find the PDF on the UCD website for example.

Victor

OP, weren't you paying attention at the start of year when they raised this topic at orientation? Are you willing to enter into disciplinary proceedings that may affect you graduating?

Sangre wrote: »

Any covenants referring to exclusive and peaceful enjoyment don't belong in a license.

But the op made not mention of "exclusive and peaceful enjoyment" being in their purported lease.

Many student residences are dorms or apartment that do not create "exclusive ... enjoyment" nevermind "peaceful enjoyment".

jpwicklow wrote: »

Duck Music don't pay the fine and see what happens!! I had a similar problem in my campus accomodation for not waking up for a fire alarm and a second time for not informing them that i would not be there for a fire alarm. I just span them the line that i'd been to the college's free legal advice centre whom had advised me not to pay it and that to ask that it be removed from my account. they took it hook,line! Sure whats the worst that can happen you end up paying it anyways!

You do relaise this means they take it from your deposit or add it to next years fees.

Sangre

Jev/N wrote: »

Well when I signed mine a few years ago it was titled "license to reside". You can find the PDF on the UCD website for example.

Doesn't matter what it calls itself.

Although as Victor said, if the college accomodation doesn't give exclusive or peaceful enjoyment it probably isn't a lease. I'm sure ucd's lawyers did they're homework.