L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    LesleyAnne - I see your point. I suspect my Tenant isn't refusing entry when she doesn't reply, but I don't want to clarify this matter with her for fear of what kind of answer I might get.

    Having read all the comments in this thread, I have to admit, I am totally confused. Some of you say that the Landlord has no right of entry (except for emergencies) and others say that the Landlord has a right of entry.

    Comment


      If you take someone round to view and your tenant insists you must not enter the premises then you must not.

      a 24hr notice clause in the tenancy is unlikely to affect their absolute right to enjoy their own home in peace and quiet.

      Comment


        This is definitely a grey issue. I will leave this thread with the view that the Landlord cannot enter if the Tenant categorically refuses entry to the property, but the Landlord can enter if the Tenant agrees or says nothing.

        Comment


          Originally posted by staycalm View Post
          Having read all the comments in this thread, I have to admit, I am totally confused. Some of you say that the Landlord has no right of entry (except for emergencies) and others say that the Landlord has a right of entry.
          Having read (most of) the other thread referred to, I would say that the consensus of the legal opinion is that you probably ARE ok to enter, but that there isn't adequate case-law to prove it. Most tenancies are so short that people don't bother taking this specific point to court. Therefore tread carefully.

          In most of these cases anyway, the sensible thing to do is not to revert to the law, but keep a reasonable dialogue going with the tenant. Ask in writing, follow up with a phone call. If it's a maintenance issue they will probably more readily agree. If it's you coming round with an agent or potential new tenant, they may be less inclined. With the latter, I would probably just let it go and not insist. They are unlikely to leave the place tidy or looking at it's best anyway, and a property full of other people's possessions rarely looks that inviting.

          The usefulness of the 'the landlord may enter the premises' clause is that it reminds the tenant that this will happen so they are less likely to refuse when it arises as they already previously agreed!

          Finally, if you really want to push it, you could try (having exhausted all other forms of contact) sending a message to say "I will be coming round on x (24+ hours hence) unless I hear from you otherwise"
          IANAL (I am not a lawyer). Anything I say here is just an opinion, so should not be relied upon! Always check your facts with a professional who really knows their onions.

          Comment


            My understanding is that you are not OK to enter without T's consent.
            You may have a clause in your agreement stating that you may enter on 24 hours notice, but my understanding is that if T refuses you'll have to seek an injunction in court.

            Therefore, if tenant has given his notice to quit, the only practical option seems to be reasonable when asking for visits and hope the tenant will be reasonable too, or to wait until he has left.

            Comment


              Originally posted by staycalm View Post
              the Landlord can enter if the Tenant says nothing.
              Then don't be surprised if on the second occasion you try that tactic, you find that the tenant has changed the locks.

              Comment


                My tenant has no problems with my one bedroom flat being viewed. However it appears that there are now about 6 people staying there and on quite a few occasions, prospective clients have walked in to find 5 girls asleep in sleeping bags on the lounge floor at midday!

                Hence it hasn't been rented. I have now stopped all viewings until she has left and the flat has been cleaned as it was pretty pointless!

                Comment


                  Several largely similar questions on separate threads have been merged into this thread (hence the repetitive nature of answers).

                  Comment


                    Hi not sure if I am allowed to post on here as am a tenant not a LL but very interested in this thread. I have been given notice at the end of my initial 6 months as LL now wishes to sell (when I took up property was told available for long let and initially that LL would only accept tenant who signed 12 mth contract)
                    So it is not my choice to move and is causing a lot of financial and other stress, however do wish to be co-operative but don't want people coming into my home when I am not in.
                    I certainly don't want to lose any of my deposit over this (although my tenancy agreement already states they will take £120 from my deposit when I leave even if no damage and in perfect state, just as a cost for them checking it?) - can I give times, say Saturday mornings, when they can arrange viewings?

                    Comment


                      Ana7 - repost your question as a new thread. You'll get a better response.

                      But, short answer, yes, you can dictate what days/time are acceptable to you for viewings.

                      The £120 deduction may be the cost of the inventory check-out; some contracts say that LL is liable for the check-in and T for the check-out.

                      Comment


                        Hello to bill65 on HPC.

                        Anyone puzzled by the above should go here

                        Comment


                          I shall post this here, as it is a landlord tenant forum, and should be of interest to members:

                          The right to quit enjoyment was granted out in the course of the Salisbury parliament 1086, it was signed by the personal hand of the conqueror when he granted the lands back to the English and is the most sacred act in English law, moreover, no parliament could altered it, for it established the constitution England. Thenceforth the land upon which an Englishman dwells he dwells upon sacred ground, which no man could violate.

                          The great end for which men entered into society was to secure their property by the laws of England such rights are preserved sacred and incommunicable.
                          Lord Camden Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils 275.

                          The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.
                          Semayne’s case (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a.

                          The Earl of Chatham put it in the next century william pitt senior 1776 in the house of lords),

                          The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.
                          In other words it is the crown which protects quite enjoyment ( the lords grants and the tenant takes the protection of the crown) or, to express the above foregoing matters in an other way, it is not for private persons to instruct the crown, that is the fuction of parliament. Parliament is sovereign subject to the will of the conqueror. You cannot reserve a right of access in an agreement, you must have the personal consent of the tenant.


                          Judges go to great lenghs to explain what the law is,moreover they choose words very carefully,it pays to study those words equally carefully. I suguest you read the words of lord camden and learn about quite enjoyment- a most learnered judgement.

                          I know you have got it in your head that a right of access can be reservrd but, the courts time and again,have decided ortherwise.

                          Regards Bill

                          Comment


                            @bill65 - it's 'quiet' enjoyment, not 'quite'.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by bill65 View Post
                              The great end for which men entered into society was to secure their property by the laws of England such rights are preserved sacred and incommunicable.
                              Lord Camden Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils 275.
                              Your quote is incomplete and therefore misleading:

                              "The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment."

                              As I understand it, Lord Camden is saying that the right to quiet enjoyment is not unassailable.

                              Comment


                                Whilst a great constitutional judgement, lord Camden missed the fact of The will of the conqueror which cannot be altered, you should read the whole of his judgement, that parliament restored the ancient constitution.That is an abstract from wikipedia.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X