Tweet
This is my first ever post on LegalBeagles, so "Hello" to all forum users, especially those in Scotland, and thank you in anticipation:
The advice sought
I'm looking for case law or statutory guidance about what is or is not capable of amounting to "nuisance or annoyance" in the context of a "Respect for Others" clause in a PRT / Private Residential Tenancy agreement.
I'd be happy to spend a few hundred pounds on legal textbooks, if I knew which one(s) are likely to be helpful.
The problem:
My landlord has asked me to formally acknowledge that certain behaviour of mine amounts to anti-social behaviour.
Although I think 6/10 people would have done exactly what I did, I'm quite happy to give an immediate undertaking never to repeat the behaviour complained of.
However, my landlord further demands that I sign an undertaking to tie my own hands in terms of defending future eviction proceedings; and, in effect, also demands that I contract out of my Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 access rights / right to roam relating to the parts of Scotland my landlord controls, on pain of eviction.
The background to this is that I've been asking my landlord company's management board some very awkward questions about their corporate governance.
My tenancy agreement defines anti-social behaviour in terms of "alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance".
I see that:
- Variations on the phrase have been used in civil and criminal legislation both in Scotland and in England & Wales for many years.
- And they've been adopted in social and private residential and commercial tenancy agreements, north and south of the border.
- And in public order / anti-social behaviour legislation.
- There is some overlap with harassment legislation.
So there must be plenty of case law about what is "likely to cause ... annoyance to others".
A BAILII search on "nuisance and annoyance" + "tenant" gives a good crop of cases, but all those I've read relate to a strikingly high level of misbehaviour involving violence, threats, vandalism to homes and vehicles, drug dealing offences and serious ongoing noise nuisance, usually associated with serious criminality or mental illness.
There is almost nothing a human can do which isn't likely to "annoy" somebody, somewhere so, on the face if it, "likely to cause ... annoyance to others" has no bottom limit.
I have tracked down the Glasgow City Council v Lockhart 1997 Hous LR99 criteria (public interest; gravity of offending; awareness of consequences of conduct; likely consequences of eviction).
But what I'm really looking for some decided cases relating to the very minimum behaviour that has been found to be capable of constituting "likely to cause nuisance or annoyance" in a residential tenancy context.
Over to you, I hope!
The advice sought
I'm looking for case law or statutory guidance about what is or is not capable of amounting to "nuisance or annoyance" in the context of a "Respect for Others" clause in a PRT / Private Residential Tenancy agreement.
I'd be happy to spend a few hundred pounds on legal textbooks, if I knew which one(s) are likely to be helpful.
The problem:
My landlord has asked me to formally acknowledge that certain behaviour of mine amounts to anti-social behaviour.
Although I think 6/10 people would have done exactly what I did, I'm quite happy to give an immediate undertaking never to repeat the behaviour complained of.
However, my landlord further demands that I sign an undertaking to tie my own hands in terms of defending future eviction proceedings; and, in effect, also demands that I contract out of my Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 access rights / right to roam relating to the parts of Scotland my landlord controls, on pain of eviction.
The background to this is that I've been asking my landlord company's management board some very awkward questions about their corporate governance.
My tenancy agreement defines anti-social behaviour in terms of "alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance".
I see that:
- Variations on the phrase have been used in civil and criminal legislation both in Scotland and in England & Wales for many years.
- And they've been adopted in social and private residential and commercial tenancy agreements, north and south of the border.
- And in public order / anti-social behaviour legislation.
- There is some overlap with harassment legislation.
So there must be plenty of case law about what is "likely to cause ... annoyance to others".
A BAILII search on "nuisance and annoyance" + "tenant" gives a good crop of cases, but all those I've read relate to a strikingly high level of misbehaviour involving violence, threats, vandalism to homes and vehicles, drug dealing offences and serious ongoing noise nuisance, usually associated with serious criminality or mental illness.
There is almost nothing a human can do which isn't likely to "annoy" somebody, somewhere so, on the face if it, "likely to cause ... annoyance to others" has no bottom limit.
I have tracked down the Glasgow City Council v Lockhart 1997 Hous LR99 criteria (public interest; gravity of offending; awareness of consequences of conduct; likely consequences of eviction).
But what I'm really looking for some decided cases relating to the very minimum behaviour that has been found to be capable of constituting "likely to cause nuisance or annoyance" in a residential tenancy context.
Over to you, I hope!