Academic question - "Single Family" (property occupation) - definition

[Tim Watts]

Hi,

In the context of a Lease, what does the term "Single Family" mean? Is
there a precise definition? Or some implied definitions or boundaries
from case law?


This is in the context of the following clause for a lease on a flat in
England:

"Not without the Lessor's
consent to use or occupy the Flat:-
(...) otherwise than as a private dwelling occupied by only one family
(...)"


Now I can see that the term clearly:

1) Permits a standard "nuclear family" - 1-2 parent(s) and children thereof.

2) Excludes two or more wholly unrelated families from permanent
cohabitation.


What I'm interested in is where the line is drawn. For example, how about:

3) "Nuclear family" as in (1) PLUS one or more of the parents' parents;

4) Immediate siblings of the parents in (1), eg brother, sister.

5) Immediate relatives - eg niece or cousin.

all non permanent, but maybe for some months, no monies charged.

------

And what about guests?

6) An unrelated friend who visits from another country and stays for a
month or two.


--------------------

Let's assume for context that none of the above would cause any
excessive noise or nuisance or other general cause for complaint.

I curious as last time I had a flat, I don't think I ever read the lease
in full and I certainly had more than one long term (2-3 months)
occurrence of number 6 above.

The lease in question is a relatively modern lease and is clearly
written to prevent things like 10 foreign builders shacking up cheaply.

So I did wonder how solidly the term "Single Family" is defined.

Cheers

Tim

[Francis Davey]

Le dimanche 11 mai 2014 11:25:53 UTC+1, Tim Watts a �crit�:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> In the context of a Lease, what does the term "Single Family" mean? Is
>
> there a precise definition? Or some implied definitions or boundaries
>
> from case law?
>

In English law, no. The meaning of a word in a lease is a matter of fact not law (though the principles applied to deciding how to interpret it are matters of law) so, in principle, there cannot be a precedential ruling on it. Some courts sometimes behave as if there is and lots of young lawyers act as if there is, but, no.

> This is in the context of the following clause for a lease on a flat in
>
> England:
>
>
>
> "Not without the Lessor's
>
> consent to use or occupy the Flat:-
>
> (...) otherwise than as a private dwelling occupied by only one family
>

The test is: "what would an objective observer with all the background knowledge of the parties at the time the lease was signed understand that phrase to mean in the context of the lease read as a whole, but ignoring any pre-contract negotiations".

In other words: your milage may vary.

Francis

[Roland Perry]

In message <hqv34b-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 11:25:53 on
Sun, 11 May 2014, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:

>And what about guests?
>
>6) An unrelated friend who visits from another country and stays for a
>month or two.

Those are usually covered by other clauses. The rental agreement I last
looked at said:

"You must not allow anyone who is not named in this agreement to live in
or share possession of or occupation of the Property with you. This does
not apply to visitors but these should not normally stay at the Property
for longer than three weeks, without our written permission."

Which of course neatly also gets round the "defining a family" issue. In
fact, I can't think of a rental agreement where I've been either tenant
or landlord that *didn't* require all adult tenants to be named.

So maybe the "family" thing refers to children related to, or
permanently cared for by, the named adults.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

> In the context of a Lease, what does the term "Single Family" mean? Is
> there a precise definition? Or some implied definitions or boundaries
> from case law?
>

ISTR this falls into or close to one of Francis Davey's many areas of
expertise[1] so I am categorically not trying to add to (let alone
gloss) his response. But having more than once had to look into the
meaning of family in other contexts I have to say that the form of words
to which you refer seems to me sadly lacking for general application.
It makes no provision for one's servants. In order to recognise the
importance of accommodating one's butler, nanny, etc etc it should IMHO
be drawn wider - eg to permit occupation by one household.

Purely by way of background I can also add that the meaning of "family"
in some legislation in this broad area has evolved. "Family" was used
without definition in legislation dealing with rights to succession to
regulated tenancies. It was taken by the courts in that context to be
have a wide meaning covering at least spouses and persons living as if
they were spouses; children; parents; brothers and sisters. The
Housing Act 1985 defined family for succession to tenancies as spouse,
partner, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle,
aunt, nephew, or niece. Then the Housing Act 2004 for HMOs defined
family as spouses/civil partners/people living together as if they were,
parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters,
uncles, aunts,snephews, nieces or cousins; plus half- and
step-wotsits.

I make no prediction how long it will be before this trend delivers
legislation defining family to include Facebook friends and Twitter
followers.


[1] or at least an area where he has previously been gainfully employed
to advise :)
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Tim Watts]

On 11/05/14 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <hqv34b-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 11:25:53 on
> Sun, 11 May 2014, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:
>> And what about guests?
>>
>> 6) An unrelated friend who visits from another country and stays for a
>> month or two.
>
> Those are usually covered by other clauses. The rental agreement I last
> looked at said:
>
> "You must not allow anyone who is not named in this agreement to live in
> or share possession of or occupation of the Property with you. This does
> not apply to visitors but these should not normally stay at the Property
> for longer than three weeks, without our written permission."
>
> Which of course neatly also gets round the "defining a family" issue. In
> fact, I can't think of a rental agreement where I've been either tenant
> or landlord that *didn't* require all adult tenants to be named.

Just to point out - this is a lease. I should have put that in the
subject - silly me :-|

But yes - I suspect tenancy agreements are much tighter as presumable
there runs a risk of other parties claiming some sort of rights, or
trying to squat?

The main reason I posted was I was actually surprised that the lease
mentioned it at all. The last lease I held was a pretty ordinary flat in
South London and the lease concerned itself mostly the usual legal
things and not putting satellite dishes up.

I don't recall it hugely restrictive in other ways, but maybe I didn't
bother reading it too hard.

The one I have just seen is extremely particular, but perhaps it's a
sign of the times...

[Tim Watts]

On 11/05/14 16:29, Francis Davey wrote:

> The test is: "what would an objective observer with all the background knowledge of the parties at the time the lease was signed understand that phrase to mean in the context of the lease read as a whole, but ignoring any pre-contract negotiations".
>
> In other words: your milage may vary.

Thank you Francis. I am a little surprised that a clause would be
written that was not well clarified - at least in this particular example.

This lease is a 32 page document that goes into such detail as the
lessee owns the plaster on the walls but not the core of the wall
(bricks/blocks/studwork) and many other clauses with extreme precision.


I suspect it is probably a clause that might be used in extreme cases
such as "several migrant persons living together at an unreasonable
density" and causing general annoyance but excessive comings and goings
- eg my 10 foreign builders example.

Cheers,

Tim

[djc]

On 11/05/14 21:44, Tim Watts wrote:
> On 11/05/14 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:

> The main reason I posted was I was actually surprised that the lease
> mentioned it at all. The last lease I held was a pretty ordinary flat in
> South London and the lease concerned itself mostly the usual legal
> things and not putting satellite dishes up.

The lease of my flat (issued 1984) is very similar and also mentions 'a
single family'. In practical terms it is as you say something that can
be used against a lessee in clearly outrageous cases. Like all terms in
a contract enforcing covenants costs time, money, patience etc. so there
is always a grey area where the case is not worth enforcing.

>
> I don't recall it hugely restrictive in other ways, but maybe I didn't
> bother reading it too hard.
>
> The one I have just seen is extremely particular, but perhaps it's a
> sign of the times...
>
>> So maybe the "family" thing refers to children related to, or
>> permanently cared for by, the named adults.
>

--
djc

[Tim Watts]

Very interesting...

I also wonder how a flat-share (co-owned lease) between 2 friends would
be handled? Perhaps special permission would have to be sought?

[Tim Watts]

On 11/05/14 23:01, djc wrote:
> On 11/05/14 21:44, Tim Watts wrote:
>> On 11/05/14 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> The main reason I posted was I was actually surprised that the lease
>> mentioned it at all. The last lease I held was a pretty ordinary flat in
>> South London and the lease concerned itself mostly the usual legal
>> things and not putting satellite dishes up.
>
>
> The lease of my flat (issued 1984) is very similar and also mentions 'a
> single family'. In practical terms it is as you say something that can
> be used against a lessee in clearly outrageous cases. Like all terms in
> a contract enforcing covenants costs time, money, patience etc. so there
> is always a grey area where the case is not worth enforcing.
>

Thanks - I'm glad my line of thinking is not so far out that someone
concurs :)

[axels12...@gmail.com]

Hi Tim,

I was wondering if you ever found out how a flat-share would be handled in this scenario?

[rogerbl...@gmail.com]

The reason landlords may inser terms like this is to avoid inadvertently allowing a HMO to exist which could cause them problems if they are not appropriately licensed - see
https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation
where the term "household" is also defined.

[Roland Perry]

In message <424114b9-6a4f-4ed9...@googlegroups.com>, at
13:52:48 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017, rogerbl...@gmail.com remarked:

>> "Not without the Lessor's
>> consent to use or occupy the Flat:-
>> (...) otherwise than as a private dwelling occupied by only one family
>> (...)"

>The reason landlords may inser terms like this is to avoid inadvertently
>allowing a HMO to exist which could cause them problems if they are not
>appropriately licensed - see

>https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation
>where the term "household" is also defined.

And another good example of laws intended to protect tenants working
very much to their disadvantage.

A group of five close-knit post-grad students (with impeccable
references) that I know, spent months trying to find a house to rent
between them, to no avail because of the HMO rule, and landlords not
wanting to fuss with the paperwork - and let's not forget the fees.

Eventually one of them had to "do a Titus Oates" at which point the
remaining four immediately found a recently built but not great[1]
terrace house, ironically with one spare bedroom between the four of
them.

[1] It's one of those "affordable" homes, that's found its way onto the
general private rental market. Given the current occupiers I think
it's well within remit. The problem is, to make it 'affordable' the
build standard is both low and shoddy, and very quickly showing its
age :(

Beggars can't be choosers I suppose.
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

On 16/11/2017 10:04, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <424114b9-6a4f-4ed9...@googlegroups.com>, at
> 13:52:48 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017, rogerbl...@gmail.com remarked:
>

>> The reason landlords may inser terms like this is to avoid inadvertently
>> allowing a HMO to exist which could cause them problems if they are not
>> appropriately licensed - see
>
>> https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation
>> where the term "household" is also defined.
>
> And another good example of laws intended to protect tenants working
> very much to their disadvantage.
>
> A group of five close-knit post-grad students (with impeccable
> references) that I know, spent months trying to find a house to rent
> between them, to no avail because of the HMO rule, and landlords not
> wanting to fuss with the paperwork - and let's not forget the fees.
>

That rather assumes that protecting their safety is to their
disadvantage. I think it's right that HMO's are fitted out to higher
safety standards than ordinary housing units, and a line has to be drawn
between them somewhere.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Roland Perry]

In message <ouk2na$qt7$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:10:01 on Thu, 16 Nov
2017, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:

>>> The reason landlords may inser terms like this is to avoid
>>>inadvertently
>>> allowing a HMO to exist which could cause them problems if they are not
>>> appropriately licensed - see
>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation
>>> where the term "household" is also defined.
>> And another good example of laws intended to protect tenants working
>>very much to their disadvantage.
>> A group of five close-knit post-grad students (with impeccable
>>references) that I know, spent months trying to find a house to rent
>>between them, to no avail because of the HMO rule, and landlords not
>>wanting to fuss with the paperwork - and let's not forget the fees.
>>
>That rather assumes that protecting their safety is to their
>disadvantage. I think it's right that HMO's are fitted out to higher
>safety standards than ordinary housing units, and a line has to be
>drawn between them somewhere.

I agree that shambolic conversions of four storey Victorian piles into
what amount to boarding houses full of strangers should indeed be
regulated.

The problem is when you've got a modern house with five chums which
probably is sufficiently safe (it's just smoke alarms and door closers I
think) then the same sledgehammer is used to crack the nut.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:52:48 -0800 (PST), rogerbl...@gmail.com
wrote:

>The reason landlords may inser terms like this is to avoid inadvertently allowing a HMO to exist which could cause them problems if they are not appropriately licensed - see
>https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation
>where the term "household" is also defined.

I'm mildly puzzled about the definition of a "large HMO" including the
fact that it's at least three storeys high. That means that a fairly
typical urban townhouse (or a suburban semi with a loft conversion)
would be a large HMO if it has just five people in it (eg, two couples
and a singleton), but an "executive-style" two-storey six-bed detached
house wouldn't be, even if the tenants are crammed in like sardines.

Is there any particular reason for that height requirement?

Mark

[Theo]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm mildly puzzled about the definition of a "large HMO" including the
> fact that it's at least three storeys high. That means that a fairly
> typical urban townhouse (or a suburban semi with a loft conversion)
> would be a large HMO if it has just five people in it (eg, two couples
> and a singleton), but an "executive-style" two-storey six-bed detached
> house wouldn't be, even if the tenants are crammed in like sardines.
>
> Is there any particular reason for that height requirement?

The HMO rules are mostly about fire safety (smoke alarms,
extinguishers/blankets, fire doors), so I assume the height is due to
increased fire risk? I think there's something about needing to be able to
seal off multi-storey staircases from other areas with fire doors, so a fire
won't spread up them. That might cause some problems for open-plan
construction in particular.

(The other bit of HMO licensing is so the LA can keep a lid on numbers in a
particular area)

Theo

[Roland Perry]

In message <dcur0ddp540unhnbm...@4ax.com>, at 20:53:31 on
Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>The reason landlords may inser terms like this is to avoid inadvertently allowing a HMO to exist which could cause them problems if they are
>>not appropriately licensed - see
>>https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation
>>where the term "household" is also defined.
>
>I'm mildly puzzled about the definition of a "large HMO" including the
>fact that it's at least three storeys high. That means that a fairly
>typical urban townhouse (or a suburban semi with a loft conversion)

These days it's quite unusual to see any urban new build that isn't
three-story, even if it's in effect a small semi/terrace with a "loft
conversion from new" - even velux-only ones, not gables.

>would be a large HMO if it has just five people in it (eg, two couples
>and a singleton), but an "executive-style" two-storey six-bed detached
>house wouldn't be, even if the tenants are crammed in like sardines.
>
>Is there any particular reason for that height requirement?

I expect it harks back to my Victorian piles, where it's probably wise
due to the internal layout[1] to have external fire escapes.

In modern small-scale build it's just mains-powered smoke detectors and
door closers, and of course built-in fireproof matting barriers between
the floors.

My pet peeve (in terms of unintended consequences) with the latter is
that in almost all cases these are such a PITA that people wedge at
least all the reception room [and worst, the kitchen] doors semi-
permanently open.

[1] Although based on anecdotal observations, a 3-storey house with
common halls/stairs, and one flat per floor appears not to be a
large HMO as a result. Perhaps the relevant fire precautions are
already taken care of in the building regs for the conversion.
--
Roland Perry

[James Heaton]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dcur0ddp540unhnbm...@4ax.com...

Vertical distance to means of escape in a fire, I would presume.

i.e. 2 storey - 1 staircase, jump from window with moderate injury

3 storey - 2 staircases, jump from window results in serious injury at least

James

[Roland Perry]

In message <oum40l$1610$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:44:08 on Fri, 17 Nov
2017, James Heaton <heatona...@gmail.com.invalid> remarked:

>> I'm mildly puzzled about the definition of a "large HMO" including the
>> fact that it's at least three storeys high. That means that a fairly
>> typical urban townhouse (or a suburban semi with a loft conversion)
>> would be a large HMO if it has just five people in it (eg, two couples
>> and a singleton), but an "executive-style" two-storey six-bed detached
>> house wouldn't be, even if the tenants are crammed in like sardines.
>>
>> Is there any particular reason for that height requirement?
>
>Vertical distance to means of escape in a fire, I would presume.
>
>i.e. 2 storey - 1 staircase, jump from window with moderate injury
>
>3 storey - 2 staircases, jump from window results in serious injury at least

In fairly modern times, anyway, the building regulations cover those
kinds of fire risks for both new build and conversions.

I could see that it might be useful to check that fire alarms still work
etc. but the fees are very high if that's the main thing they are
inspecting for.

In Cambridge: Initial application: £562 Renewal (5yr): £452

--
Roland Perry