› Forums › The Professionals › Overcrowding – Advertising for tenants in excess of Tenancy Agreement › Current Page
Thank you for your interest and comments. Whilst it is illegal to over occupy outside the agreed tenancy, is it illegal to advertise where upon you can take action over the fact they are advertising i.e whether they are successful or not is unknown as you cannot enter premises without the usual waiting periods and the evidence is gone. For example, does the mere fact that a tenant advertises(or someone does on their behalf) for say four in a room provide you with enough “evidence” to issue a breach of a by-law and/or a breach of the tenancy agreement without the need to go in and witness? Does it constitute enough evidence to terminate or do you require warnings to be issued first?
For example, tenants are registered at a couple of apartments, with common email addresses or common contact numbers. The tenancies may be in the same or different names. Advertising is evidenced seeking people in excess of that permitted citing the contact numbers. Can a breach be issued? The actual apartment may be unknown. It may be one or both or more, depending on how big the operation is(likely to be be all as an operation is in place). If notices can be issued on the grounds of advertising for premises where the tenant is registered or listed as a contact that would help break up the operation.
Of course the “tenant” can produce letters of approval from owners for sub-letting which is just a way of legalising the operation. But it does not legalise excess occupancy.
My point being I am seeking a view on the ability to act on advertising, as the basics restrictions are in place with a tenancy agreement and by-laws. If you cannot act on advertising as it stands now, would a by-law restricting a tenant advertising excess occupancy anywhere in the building hold up i.e it is not a restraint on their rights what. To labour the point a by-law that restricts advertising over occupancy even if you are not the advertiser. All can claim “not me”, but the beneficiary has a tenant or owner interest in the building.
Your thoughts please