THE revamped tenancy agreement for council tenants (LET, July 9) is not just for new tenants but existing ones as well and is unfair to all the tenants on some points.

These have been slipped in on the back of fear of "neighbours from hell."

It is right that tenants who do not abide by the rules should be warned then slung out, but it is wrong for the local authority to take powers that they are not entitled to.

The new agreement states that the local authority will not be responsible for garden fences of a certain type or in a particular location. The type and location is not specified.

Is it right that the council can refuse to repair a garden fence just because they say it is the wrong type or is on property which they say is in the wrong location?

After all, the council owns the fence and the tenant pays rent for all the property, including the fence.

Other clauses mention "visitors" and "locality" but fail to define who is classed as a visitor and how far from a tenant's house is classed as "being in the locality." A tenant is responsible for the behaviour of, among others, a visitor.

As the tenant I accept that I should be responsible for the behaviour of anyone living in the house, but to make me responsible for the behaviour of a visitor is the beginnings of a police state.

A tenant or visitor must not be convicted of an arrestable offence committed in the property or its locality.

If a person is convicted of breaking into a house in my locality then burgles my house, thus making him a visitor and therefore making me responsible for him, I can be evicted. Where is the justice in this?

This new tenancy agreement is ill-thought-out and allows the council to abdicate their responsibility to their tenants and it does not include those ex-tenants who have bought their property yet they live in the same locality.

Name and address received

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.