Private Home and Clamping

listermint

Here is a topic for discussion i suppose.

*note i despise clamping, however it can have uses i suppose.

With the advent of many new posts about not being able to move tenants on legitimately. What would be the implications of Landlords inserting a clamping Clause for the driveways of their own properties. i.e the driveway is part of the rental agreement and any pause in rents would result in the parking rights being impacted - Result clamping of vehicle/s on the driveway.

Just something i considered whilst reading through some of the trials and tribulations some landlords are going through with seemingly previously good tenants turning nasty because the market is so heated for rentals.

endacl

There would be so many worms in that can...

Flatzie_poo

In most cases, they'll probably just park outside the property on a public road...

listermint

endacl wrote: »

There would be so many worms in that can...

Yeah i get that part, but should it not be considered in an arsenal of defensive measures ?

listermint

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

In most cases, they'll probably just park outside the property on a public road...

I doubt they would even consider that initially.

.......

This post has been deleted.

1874

I doubt that would gain any support in the tenants board and fighting it in court based on a breach of contract probably wouldn't either.
Having been watching a few U.K. TV channels, one has a programme with high court enforcement guys going around enforcing high court orders, many to reclaim unpaid rent or just eviction based on no rent being paid, I can see there may be mitigating circumstances in some cases, but in others it's wilful refusal to pay and they are out on the day, that is needed here, but the councils have absolved themselves of responsibility to house people and legally that has been shifted to private owners.
Clamping people would likely be a non runner here,

seamus

OSI wrote: »

Would be a nice fast way to piss off plenty of the wrong people you'd be looking to help with removing the tenant.

That clause only applies to public places. A driveway does not count as a public place.

However, that's not to say there aren't other legal issues that could arise from immobilising someone's car, regardless of what agreements may or may not have been signed.

At best, you could take a leaf out of Three's book and specify use of the driveway for parking as a "benefit" of the tenancy so long as the rent is paid on time and in full. Failure to pay the rent on time means you reserve the right to withdraw this "benefit".

But the kicker; you can't obstruct general access to the property. So "withdrawing" the driveway would require the use of a security post - you couldn't lock the gate or anything like that because the tenant still has the right to access the driveway.

And in general this would only apply while a fixed term lease agreement is in place. If the tenant refuses to sign a new fixed term lease and instead opts to stick with their part 4 rights, then the notion of the "benefit" evaporates and the law gives the tenant full rights to exclusive use and enjoyment of the property and its surrounds. This includes the right to park their vehicle in the driveway.

So in short, a pretty complicated thing to do and ultimately likely to make eviction much more difficult, not easier.

listermint

OSI wrote: »

Would be a nice fast way to piss off plenty of the wrong people you'd be looking to help with removing the tenant.

Thats for public roads not private property which a driveway is.

Just thought it would be an interesting consideration to make in a tenancy agreement.

by the seaside

listermint wrote: »

Thats for public roads not private property which a driveway is.

Just thought it would be an interesting consideration to make in a tenancy agreement.

I wouldn't be keen as a tenant to do business with a landlord who used this kind of clause.

the_syco

OSI wrote: »

113.—(1) A person shall not, without lawful authority or reasonable cause, interfere or attempt to interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle while it is stationary in a public place, or get on or into or attempt to get on or into the vehicle while it is so stationary.

Would be a nice fast way to piss off plenty of the wrong people you'd be looking to help with removing the tenant.

As the driveway would be private property, I don't see that coming into play here.

by the seaside wrote: »

I wouldn't be keen as a tenant to do business with a landlord who used this kind of clause.

Because you would intend on not paying rent?

seamus wrote: »

And in general this would only apply while a fixed term lease agreement is in place. If the tenant refuses to sign a new fixed term lease and instead opts to stick with their part 4 rights, then the notion of the "benefit" evaporates and the law gives the tenant full rights to exclusive use and enjoyment of the property and its surrounds. This includes the right to park their vehicle in the driveway.

With this in mind, and if the clause was down to the tenant not paying rent, would the tenant still have the Part4 rights if they were not paying the correct rent?

Commotion Ocean

Best way to deal with a tenant refusing to pay rent is to have a clause in rental contract where the landlord can turn off the gas and electricity and water should payment stop.

Paulw

Commotion Ocean wrote: »

Best way to deal with a tenant refusing to pay rent is to have a clause in rental contract where the landlord can turn off the gas and electricity and water should payment stop.

Which would not be legally binding, because it would be illegal.

4ensic15

The LL can lease the house only. He can show a sketch of the property with the tenant having exclusive use of the house and the tenant and landlord sharing the driveway on a first come first served basis. If there is a default in rent the LL can just put his own materials in the driveway.

by the seaside

the_syco wrote: »

Because you would intend on not paying rent?

No. When I was a tenant I always used to pay my rent on time. A clause like this would signal potential trouble in a landlord.

Likewise, I am sure any landlord would run a mile from a potential tenant who sought to insert a clause to allow then to clamp the landlord's car if the landlord took more than 72 hours to send a plumber to attend a broken boiler. It just smells of trouble down the line. It doesn't mean that the landlord would shirk their responsibilities.

athtrasna

Any more illegal suggestions will lead to forum bans.

Mod

Samuel T. Cogley

Practically what are you going to do when the tenant cuts off the clamp?

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Practically what are you going to do when the tenant cuts off the clamp?

Charge them for loss of clamp or put another one on it.

Clamps are cheap losing 20000 to an over holder is not.

This method works for management fees so why could it not translate into a single dwelling there isn't a real reason.

Landlords appear powerless when someone literally acts the ballax it seems

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

Charge them for loss of clamp or put another one on it.

Clamps are cheap losing 20000 to an over holder is not.

This method works for management fees so why could it not translate into a single dwelling there isn't a real reason.

Landlords appear powerless when someone literally acts the ballax it seems

I'd be very dubious you'd be able to claim for a clamp. You'd have no contractual agreement, maybe you might I dunno - I can't see how you'd separate out the drive. It doesn't really work for management co.s tbh. Our clamp gets cut off all the time, but usually makes the point.

You also potentially face a claim against you - I can't remember the bloody name of the Tort, it's one of the exotic one. A bit notional that one, pub conversation.

Landlords are completely fecked.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'd be very dubious you'd be able to claim for a clamp. You'd have no contractual agreement, maybe you might I dunno - I can't see how you'd separate out the drive. It doesn't really work for management co.s tbh. Our clamp gets cut off all the time, but usually makes the point.

You also potentially face a claim against you - I can't remember the bloody name of the Tort, it's one of the exotic one. A bit notional that one, pub conversation.

Landlords are completely fecked.

I don't see how you could face any claim if it's part of rental agreement and tenant signs rental agreement.

Parking isnt a right.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

I don't see how you could face any claim if it's part of rental agreement and tenant signs rental agreement.

Parking isnt a right.

You will let us know how you get on?

76544567

listermint wrote: »

Yeah i get that part, but should it not be considered in an arsenal of defensive measures ?

The way I see it the only defensive measure is to either get out of the business or to let in such a way that the RTB can fcuk themselves and leave you in total control of your own property.

I recently got rid of some problem tenants and just today agreed to let the place Monday to Friday to a guy who will be using it to stay during the week as he works near the apartment and travels from afar.

This way there is no RTB involved and I actually earn more money than the stupid below market rate that the last rule change locked me in at if I was to rent to a tenant.

Its already for sale with an agent, but not advertised as I dont want nosey people poking around, only serious people who the agent knows. And I dont really care if it sells or not for my asking price. If it doesnt sell in two years the rental lock will be off and i'll flog it easily then. In the meantime its making me a return.

I'll never put myself in a position where I dont have full control again. Clamping is a useless tool. They will just cut it off as I have seen happen to clamps all over the place. I even often saw clamps actually hung up on a railing beside where the cars used to be clamped. It wont work.

Sleeper12

listermint wrote:

With the advent of many new posts about not being able to move tenants on legitimately. What would be the implications of Landlords inserting a clamping Clause for the driveways of their own properties. i.e the driveway is part of the rental agreement and any pause in rents would result in the parking rights being impacted - Result clamping of vehicle/s on the driveway.

Many management companies do something like this now. Each house /apartment is issued parking permits when the management fees are up to date. If you fall behind or refuse to pay they clamp the car.
Not sure how it would work for landlords but in the city landlords often rent out the parking in apartments separately

athtrasna

76544567 wrote: »

The way I see it the only defensive measure is to either get out of the business or to let in such a way that the RTB can fcuk themselves and leave you in total control of your own property.

I recently got rid of some problem tenants and just today agreed to let the place Monday to Friday to a guy who will be using it to stay during the week as he works near the apartment and travels from afar.

This way there is no RTB involved and I actually earn more money than the stupid below market rate that the last rule change locked me in at if I was to rent to a tenant.

Its already for sale with an agent, but not advertised as I dont want nosey people poking around, only serious people who the agent knows. And I dont really care if it sells or not for my asking price. If it doesnt sell in two years the rental lock will be off and i'll flog it easily then. In the meantime its making me a return.

I'll never put myself in a position where I dont have full control again.

Mod note

Please post on the issue at hand, this thread is about clamping at private homes, not about your property decisions.