Topic: Refusal to sign tenancy agreements

[Cruz]

We are a 120-plot self-managed allotment that is owned by the local borough council. Whenver a new member signs up for a plot, the Association has to send their contact details to the council, which then sends them a tenancy agreement. We have only been in existence for about two years. Unfortunately, the most senior committee member continues to urge members not to sign the agreements, leaving around 50 signed up and 10 not.
The council is aware of the situation, but has so far not yet insisted that the remaining agreements are signed. This is causing a lot of bad feeling among the membership that has signed up.
We are aware that these people are not covered under third party liability insurance, since, effectively, they are on the site illegally. They have paid membership subs and are therefore members of our association, so we are sort of legitimising their illegal actions.
Can anybody suggest a way of dealing with these issues and put forward opinions as to possible liability issues in case of a third party legal action?

[saddad]

Evict them...  :-X

[Tin Shed]

Do they know that they are not covered by third party liability insurance  and what the consequences could be?  Then suggest that  they pay for their own insurance.
We have associate members of our Allotment Society - I presume that they must pay a nominal amount - but it only allows them to buy from the lottie shop where a lot of seeds/potatoes etc are cheaper than in the shops.  I would suggest that as they are only paying subs, but not the tenancy agreement, they are only associate members and would not be entitled to any council help ie skips,  repairing damage to fences etc

[elvis2003]

why are the senior comm members urging them not to sign?
and they cant be evicted if they havnt signed a tenancy,as they are not tenants,surely,what a tricky situation!

[Cruz]

The cited reasons for not signing the tenancy agreements are not the real ones. There is an underlying hate of the council for them having the right to tell members what and what they cannot do with plots. Yes, I know, the council has the right to do this, but they claim that being self-managed means they don't. It's like talking to children...
They are aware of the insurance situation but don't seem to care.
By the way, you can't take out individual insurance in this case. Since they are on the plot illegally, you can't insure against illegality!! What worries me is that in any insurance case, the association might be found liable, since we are legitamising their presence by taking their subs.
I like the associate member idea, though.
Only the council would have the right to evict, since they own the site. We only manage it. The tenancy agreements come from the council.
Has nobody else out there been through this mad situation?

[Pesky Wabbit]

Is the council allowed to change the locks ? and only issue keys to 'legitimate' plot holders.

[Squash64]

It's a very strange situation.

We are also council owned and self-managed but have never had this sort of problem.  When a new tenant takes on a plot I just tell them we are filling in a tenancy agreement and they sign on the dotted line. 

Are the other committee members in agreement with the views of the senior member?  It's strange that your council are aware of it but don't do anything.  What happened to the rent the 10 people paid, did the council accept it?

[Trevor_D]

Are you affiliated to NSALG? If so, give them a ring. (If not, I suggest you join.) And get in touch with your council's allotments officer.

We're an independent site - if you don't sign, you don't get a plot.

Read in conjunction with your other post, it looks as if you have problems with your Committee.

[tonybloke]

it sounds as if your council / association interface is having problems!!  signing a tenancy agreement should happen at the same time as rent is paid!
You could resolve this easily with a little 'tweaking' of the wording on the reciept you issue when taking payment. It should be worded something along the lines of, " I hereby agree to all terms and conditions of the associations / councils tenancy document" 
* simples *

 ;)

[Digeroo]

I do not know about Tenancy agreements but with employment if you do not sign the contract but start the job and get paid you accept the contract by your actions.  I would think that if they pay for and start work on their allotment they also accept the conditions. 

[Jayb]

I was just about to write the same thing as Digeroo

[tonybloke]

well, 3 in agreement in a row!!!  ;)

[Cruz]

The situation at our plot is extremely difficult.
We pay the council nothing for the site and they, in return, give us absolutely nothing. In recent years, all the senior people at the allotment department left and those that replaced them only look after allotments as a sideline.
The council issues tenancy agreements as a matter of course and, when questioned, has noted that failure to sign could result in eviction.
The illegal tenants actually pay the allotment association their subs and we control what happens to these. So, they are bizarrely our members without having the legal right to do so. But I was interested to read the comments of those who suggested that by starting work on their plots they have, by default, signed those agreements!
I have asked these questions of the national association, but this is unheard of territory!
I am therefore curious to gather suggestions from as far and wide as possible.
Thanks for your continuing input.

[Pesky Wabbit]

How about a big sign on the gate along the lines of

"All ye who enter here and doeth work by spade, fork or hand ...

... hereby agree to all terms and conditions of the associations / councils tenancy document" 
* simples *

 ;)

[Cruz]

Thinking through the logic, if somebody declines to sign an agreement, but because they begin to work their plot are effectively agreeing to abide by its rules, doesn't that give them all the advantages of not signing and none of the disadvantages?
There have to be disbenefits or nobody would bother to sign!
Do they have security of tenure, for example? The allotment acts make it impossible to evict a tenant in under 12 months if the land is reassigned for other purposes and also gives the right of compensation to tenants. How would the motley crew stand in these circumstances?
JC

[Robert_Brenchley]

Has rent for the illegally occupied plots been accepted? If so, a tenancy exists in law, and the conditions can presumably be enforced. If not, they're completely illegal, and need to be sent suitable letters from the Council legal department, offering them the choice between regularising the situation and leaving. The Council is presumably the landlord, therefore they are the ones who have to act.

[Unwashed]

Several things.

1. Why are the committee members telling new tenants not to sign their tenancy agreements?

2. None of what you describe is illegal.

3. I'm not sure what you're saying about insurance.  Can you explain whos policy and liability you're talking about.

4. Property law looks a bit like contract law, but it ain't.  If a tenant hasn't signed a tenancy agreement there are a few possibilities, all of them complicated.  One possibility is that no tenancy exists and the tenant is just trespassing, but if the council are awarre of the situation the next possibility is that the tenant is a tenant at will which gives her very little security of tenure, if the council have taken rent, particularly if they've taken rent at the same time of year for two years, is that a common law periodic tenancy exists, and another possibility is that an equitable rather than legal lease exists.

All very awkward, but how does that affect the association?

[Cruz]

I have to be careful what I say on an open forum.
The committee member that does the meeting and greeting and allocating of plots is trying to stop "development" of the site, contrary to the 1908 Act. A series of tenancy agreements were originally issued to members, but these contained the wrong plot numbers. A year later, therefore, they had to be re-done and this is when the particular committee member persuaded a group of plot holders sympathetic towards the non-"development" of the site to refuse to sign. The reasons they give are spurious at best, but are aimed at trying to limit the power of the council to determine how the site will be developed in future.
The rent paid by plotholders goes directly to the allotment association; nothing is forwarded to the council, which in turn provides nothing other than the land. However, the association is obliged to register each plot holder with the council, which then sends out tenancy agreements for them to sign. In the meantime, the association allows the plot holder to start work on their plot. Ergo sum, the association is legitimising the right of somebody to work a plot, albeit the plot holder should have signed the agreement provided by the council.
The third party insurance policy provided via the national allotments association cannot cover those members who don't sign an agreement. This is because, in reality, only those members signing their tenancy agreements are legally allowed to work their plot. The council admits that those refusing to sign could be evicted by it. This hasn't happened. The insurance company explained that those members not signing, because they are illegally occupying plots, aren't covered. Why not? Because a basic tenant of insurance is that you cannot insure against an illegal act. If you start from that point, you are in wholly uncharted territory.
If the council doesn't evict them, should it be liable in the case of an insurance claim?
Would an injured party sue the illegal plot holder?
Would an injured party be able to sue the allotment association, committee and members for taking an annual subscription from that illegal plot holder? Because the tenancy agreements are imposed by the council -bypassing the association- we cannot evict members that don't sign for not signing. But what shoudl their status be vis-a-vis our association? That's the real crux of this matter. How can we protect ourselves? I have spoken to the insurance company, which points out a court would have to decide where liability lays. But it is extremely uncomfortable for everybody.
The rogue committee member has no assets and nothing to lose,...
So, if I scream "HELP!" you can understand why.

[elvis2003]

i really feel for you cruz! so,if the council arent recieving any of the rent money,who is responsible for making sure all rent monies are put to the correct usage?

[Chrispy]

The only comment I would add, (other than it all sounds a bit of a mess), is that by refusing to sign, this could also hinder any campain to stop development, that is, the  council will just ignore any objections of any body who has not signed.