rental-property civil-law tenant
Tenancy - definition of &quot;The Property&quot; and exceptions
<p>So I'm having a small issue with my landlord who has changed the lock on my garage, and says that "I never rented the garage".</p>

<p>Wondering if anyone is able to confirm my understanding, the below clause "the property" does this give me access to all areas of the land and buildings, that exist within the boundaries (as defined by the local council) for my address.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p><strong><em>Geographic:</em></strong>  United Kingdom - England.</p>

<p><strong><em>Contract:</em></strong> Private Tenancy</p>

<p><strong><em>Clause in question:</em></strong>
The Property situated at and being ... __ ... , together with
the fixtures, fittings, furniture and effects therein and more particularly specified in the Inventory signed by the
Tenant and all grounds. It shall include the right to use, in common with others, any shared rights of access,
stairways, communal parts, paths and drives.</p>

<p>Attached images of the property to help visualise the situation. (Red outline of what I believe is mine)
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/eEGrf.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/eEGrf.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/kYwp6.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/kYwp6.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>The term "The Property" does not intrinsically include or exclude a garage in this situation, so the answer has to come from other considerations. The lease is unclear, so the courts will need to look at other factors (such as the picture) to decide which interpretation is correct. Insofar as the landlord wrote the contract and could have included a clause explicitly excluding the garage, but didn't, the courts may rule in your favor under the doctrine <em>contra proferentem</em>. The physical arrangement does support the conclusion that the garage is part of The Property, in particular the access to the part constituting your yard. This assumes that there actually is access to your yard from the garage.</p>

<p>Scouring the entire contract, there may be some subtle indication of how the garage is to be treated, such as a clause presupposing that you have access to the garage ("shall clean the garage..."). Then we come to the matter of the key. You say the landlord changed the key: does that mean you used to have a key that gave you access to the garage? If you used to have access to the garage, using a key provided by the landlord, that would support the conclusion that the garage was not a separate item governed by its own contract. If you have never had and were not given access to the garage (no key), that would support the contention that the garage is separate. Similar questions would be raised about the actual use of the garage: has the landlord been using it to store equipment? That would support his contention. Had you been using the garage previously and now months later the landlord wants to charge rent for the garage? That runs counter to his claim that you didn't rent the garage. In other words, since the wording does not answer the question, the full set of circumstances would have to considered.</p>
