Landlord letting valuer to property without tenant's approval

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Landlord letting valuer to property without tenant's approval

    Greetings,

    I know there is a sticky post about this issue (33 pages long!) and I read some of it, but I'm not sure if my specific question is answered there, hence, this post.

    Our landlord sent valuers in different occasions a few times and we did not object to these visits by these third parties (for remortgage etc)

    However, the landlord always implies in her messages that she'll be letting the valuer in if we're not at home. We're not OK with this, we're reasonable people and always happy to arrange some time where we can be at home and the valuer or some other person she is sending can visit.

    We did not raise the issue since we were always at home during the past visits but if this happens when we're away on a trip or simply on a busy day (I work from home) can she enter the property if we tell her we don't want visitors when we are not at home?

    I'm deeply uncomfortable with her suggestions of her implied right to let people in if we're not at home. Can't I say: "sorry but this will have to be next week, because we're unable to be there."?

    Apologies in advance if there is an answer to this question in that long sticky post.

    #2
    You merely write in a calm polite letter/email that you refuse all visits without your prior, written, agreement - which.you have not yet given.

    Then change locks - keep old to change back when you go - or get shed alarm.

    Expect s21 by return
    I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

    Comment


      #3
      It depends on what it says in your tenancy agreement (which details what you and your landlord have already agreed).

      The landlord has a right of access to inspect the condition of their property with 24 hours written notice by law.
      You have the legal right to exclude your landlord from the property, but it's difficult if you are not there to prevent it (when ironically, it would probably be OK).

      Surely there can't need to be that many visits from valuers...
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #4

        Surely there can't need to be that many visits from valuers...
        Maybe its just a cover story and OP's LL is really trying to sell the property ?

        Thunderbirds are go

        Comment


          #5
          Thanks for the replies. I don't mind if she wants to sell the property, it is hers, so be it. I just want to know if she has a legal basis when she implies she can just let herself and others in if I'm not there to do it.

          We are currently on a monthly rolling contract so I'm not sure how the clause in our original contract (which expired some months ago) regarding a 24 hour notice for a visit applies at the moment. It probably still stands.

          I would still politely ask her not to do this but I would not say you're not legally entitled to letting yourself in if she has that right.

          Based on the messages and what I've read on the web, it looks like a grey area.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
            You have the legal right to exclude your landlord from the property
            Not when that means breaching the terms of the tenancy.

            Comment


              #7
              476 pages on the subject:
              https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quiet-Enjoy.../dp/B073WHTGL2

              It ain't simple.
              I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                It ain't simple.
                Regarding quiet enjoyment, the answer is rather definitive: A reasonable right of access isn't a breach of quiet enjoyment, which isn't absolute.

                I don't know why people keep bringing up 'quiet enjoyment' as a trump card.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Many tenancies (eg RLA if I've read it correctly, free gov.uk one ) make no mention of viewings, valuations, surveyors etc etc . NLA one does.

                  If not mentioned in tenancy then the landlord, as I understand it, has no right of access. He can ask, he can offer inducement, but can be flatly refused. (Whereas 24hrs reasonable notice for inspections is enshrined in law: But an "inspection" is not a valuation, or a viewing or a survey (survey for mortgage or by purchaser).

                  I agree that if there is a "reasonable right of access" it would not be a breach, but the only way a landlord could enforce same would be courts.

                  Best wishes to all, including those who disagree with me.

                  And while we're at it, merry Xmas!
                  I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                    Many tenancies (eg RLA if I've read it correctly, free gov.uk one ) make no mention of viewings, valuations, surveyors etc etc . NLA one does.
                    Landlords should use good agreements, but that's another issue.

                    Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                    I agree that if there is a "reasonable right of access" it would not be a breach, but the only way a landlord could enforce same would be courts.
                    You only have to go to court if the tenant physically prevents access. At that point the tenant should also be evicted.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Only a judge can decide on specific cases.

                      The landlord may may have a right to inspect his property within 24 hours but if the tenant physically blocks entry (changing locks, for example) then the landlord’s only legal option would be to go to court (either to gain entry or to remove the tenant).

                      The tenant’s refusal to allow access may well put him in breach of his tenancy, for which the landlord could sue if he felt he had suffered a loss (in the extreme example, if the landlord wanted to enter to fix something which led to further damage because of the tenant blocking entry).

                      On a practical level, if the landlord enters when you’re not in, even if you have stated you don’t want them to, they will suffer very little consequences as a result (especially if they protect themselves by having a witness).

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
                        Not when that means breaching the terms of the tenancy.
                        Yes, even when that means breaching the terms of the tenancy you have that "right".

                        You may have to compensate your landlord for any loss arising from the breach, or you may be able to ask a court to order the tenant to comply with the agreement, but you have rights that conflict with your tenancy agreement and there is nothing that says the rights conferred by the TA are superior to those conferred by the tenancy.

                        Or (to be fair) vice versa.

                        And, I agree, the right to exclude has nothing to do with quiet enjoyment.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          Yes, even when that means breaching the terms of the tenancy you have that "right".
                          Not at all.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            The right to exclude anyone from a property at any time exists independently of any contractual term.
                            It's part of "exclusive occupation", which is an essential characteristic of a tenancy.

                            By a tenant insisting on that right, the landlord can't cross the tenant's threshold - which might put the tenant in breach of their tenancy agreement if there is a term that allows the landlord to enter and may even breach the right of a landlord to enter created by legislation.

                            Doesn't mean that the right is extinguished or ceases to exist - only a court can decide which is the superior "right" in a particular situation.

                            Conflicting rights, contractual terms and legislation are fairly commonplace - it's one of the reasons we have a court system.
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment

                            Latest Activity

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X