To wonder if my tenant should have told me..

[MatildaTheCat]

I'm a nice landlord, I promise. I have one very small flat local to where I live. It is 45m Sq. approx. one bedroom 10' 10' ( sorry to mix up metric and imperial) and another 7'x10' max. Living room again 11x11' max. No space to eat in the kitchen.My tenant is a young mum with two young dc aged approx 5 and 3 ish. One boy and one girl. They have bunks in the smaller bedroom. Her rent is covered by HB although she has refused to have them pay me direct and has on occasion paid late. Very late at the start of the tenancy.

She looks after my property well and I do regular inspections. I am aware that she has a cat although I've never seen it and it as against the agreement.

So, today I am due to go round to do an inspection and get a text putting me off because ' In April I discovered I was five months pregnant and the baby is now due in a month and I have to go for a check up.' I can't explain how much I cannot imagine how she will manage to live in such a cramped flat with three small dc. and all. The kit of a newborn.Perhaps I am naiave and this is normal. I'm thinking that with benefit caps now she won't get help to get a bigger place? It's a very expensive area and her dc are very lucky to be in a great school literally just over the road.

Should she have contacted me to explain her new situation? Is it none of my business? Am I right to feel concerned? I feel a heartsink situation coming on....

Thoughts much appreciated.

Lurked Actually chandler you're incorrect, not adhering to a clause of a contract, whether tenancy or not, doesn't automatically result in a court finding it a breach. Contract law even at a very basic level allows a court to make exceptions for a range of reasons. I'm too lazy to bother googling and I'm sure you're capable of doing it yourself if you don't believe me, but I bet the information is easily found to prove it.

That's not what I said. A breach of contract can potentially end a contract. Obviously not all breaches will end a contract. This is very basic contract law - generally, in scots law material breaches will end a contract (or if the contract was voidable in the first place due to error over the persons involved), in English law, it will depend whether it is a breach of a term or a condition. Personally, I would state whether a term is material or not, or that all terms are material, so as to reduce the court's freedom to decide that for me. Its a matter of good drafting.

Perhaps you should, if you are interested, and not "too lazy", quote the English version of the statutory grounds that is equivalent to Ground 13. If you deal with leases, it will be easy enough to find as it will be appended to the lease.

And of course if you specify those entitled to reside in a property, it would in many cases be a breach of contract if others were moved in. Of course landlords offer different prices based on how many people will be living there! I would think that, especially in this market, if you have a smaller property and are struggling to find a tenant, and one person comes along and says "its only for me, can you offer me a lower rent because I would be struggling on my own to pay more, and it will only mean half or less wear on the property" is quite a common scenario.

I think you are trying to allude to the concept of reasonableness under s. 18 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and I agree that a baby or two would not void a contract of lease, but that several other adults or perhaps even one more adult, depending on the terms of the contract, could. In the OP, its clear the landlord is anxious because the tenant is already on benefits and living in a small property with two children, and appears not to show concern for the children living in such conditions in the future.

No chandler I'm not debating that some breaches won't end/ void a contract. I'm stating that a court can find not adhering to a term isn't a breach in the first place. And whether you state something as material to the contract or not, a court can over ride that if they want, on various grounds.
Neither do I wish to quote anything in an attempt to impress, and the only reason I can think why you'd ask me too is because you think I'd struggle. Whereas I could quote as much legal jargon as I wanted, and you wouldn't be any the wiser to whether I knew it or I'd googled it.
And while I agree a ll struggling to let a property may drop the rent for a tenant, that can happen for any reason not just how many will live there. Same once a tenant is in a house, a ll may drop the rent to keep a good tenant when their partner moves out if they are struggling, but that can happen for any number of reasons. And you'll find properties are advertised at a fixed rental price, not starting from. Unless of course they're advertising multiple properties/ rooms which isn't what we're discussing

Chandler, I am curious how you can state that the OP's tenant is in breach of her contract after ONE occasion where she cant be there because she has an appointment? How can you actually interpret this as "in breach of contract" and barring entry is beyond me. Wanting to rearrange entry to a different time surely does not warrant a "breach of contract" down her neck?

No wonder lawyers earn so much, they grab legal issues and causes for lawsuits out of thin air to get themselves work.

Lurked Neither do I wish to quote anything in an attempt to impress, and the only reason I can think why you'd ask me too is because you think I'd struggle. Whereas I could quote as much legal jargon as I wanted, and you wouldn't be any the wiser to whether I knew it or I'd googled it.

I wouldn't have thought it would take more than 30s to look over the statutory grounds for notice to quit (if you don't know them by heart) and find the English equivalent of Ground 13. Its such an important ground, I'm surprised at the continual mention of the statutory grounds when combined with the reluctance to actually specify them. I don't really think anyone could struggle with them because they are designed to be understood by the tenant, not just property professionals. It wouldn't matter whether I was "any wiser to whether I knew it or I'd googled it" because all you need to know is to be able to recognise it when required.

Quint Chandler, I am curious how you can state that the OP's tenant is in breach of her contract after ONE occasion where she cant be there because she has an appointment?

I didn't state that. Perhaps you need to read more clearly what I did say, or you are referring to another poster. I can however imagine that continued refusal of access for the checks specified in the lease might constitute a breach over time, particularly in the light of other factors (the obvious example would be moving a partner in while hiding the fact that she still claimed benefits - actually I have no idea whether this is the case here or not but in general, it is not an unknown scenario).

No wonder lawyers earn so much, they grab legal issues and causes for lawsuits out of thin air to get themselves work.

In actual fact, what a good lawyer will do is design a lease with possible problems that might occur, and draft it so as to provide potential solutions, and to declare that it a material term (or condition and not a warranty under English law). Hence, its a good idea to specify who is permitted to live in the property, if that is important/relevant. Its also a good idea, if it has ever been your main residence, to serve notice at the beginning of the tenancy to that effect. Its not a guarantee of getting what you want in court, but if you don't put it in, you will almost certainly make life harder for yourself.

I think either we're talking at cross purposes chandler or we disagree, nowhere have I brought up the statutory grounds to quit or any debate over the contents. My initial point was about contract law and how not adhering to the contract doesn't automatically constitute a breach, hence my confusion over why you would allude to statutory grounds for notice to terminate a tenancy and your wish for me to quote them. Because the point is that the statutory grounds cover an obviously wide range with no specific absolutes that could be applied to ops case, so short of applicable precedent in ops case a judge would have plenty of discretion to decide whether or not the ops tenant has breached any term of the contract

Yes, I'm fully aware of the notice periods, thank you. I don't have any tenants either. I'm not sure why you assumed that I'm a landlord.

Its very frustrating when people set themselves up in letting agencies without understanding the law, and charge people for leases that they don't understand, particularly when they don't have a background in the basics of contract law.

So which ground in statutory grounds is equivalent in English law to Ground 13? I can find it quite easily within a couple of minutes. I'm a bit surprised that people who have referred to the statutory grounds seem so unaware of its existence.

Chandler You are wrong. I've been involved in Scottish private housing law for over 25 years, acting for landlords. A lease granted to one named tenant does not mean that one named tenant cannot have other people living with him whatever the landlord might stick in the lease.

Chandler why are you still banging on about the statutory grounds and what is coming across as a rather odd desire for me to quote them at you? If you know them then why do you wish me to find them?
You really seem to miss my point. Regardless of the contents of the statutory grounds it's a judge who gets to decide if they are applicable as breach of contract i.e grounds for eviction. Or any other reason for that matter. Basically the best property lawyer in the world could draft up a tenancy contract citing whatever mad ideas they like, and if they are entirely mad then no judge will uphold them as breaches. And even if there was case law from 1406 upholding the mad conditions it could still be overturned

Careful tough or you might also be asked repeatedly to quote random paragraphs of statutory law!