L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

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

    Originally posted by bill65 View Post
    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.
    Quite so. Which is why we would all be advised to trust Lawcruncher's considered and erudite interpretation of the statute in question as it applies to the landlord-tenant relationship today and not a miscopied chunk of Wikipaedia, mildly interesting as it is for its historical content.

    Plus, having ploughed through that thread on HPC I can only say that I am in awe of Lawcruncher's/Damocles' patience and tact when dealing with his detractors, some of whom are truly buffoons.
    'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

    Comment


      EDIT to post #183

      Westminster, I am sorry, I have cited you in post #183, whereas it should have been MTG.

      Comment


        Originally posted by bill65 View Post
        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.
        Er...from which you quoted in support of your assertion that LL cannot reserve a right of access. Naturally, I assumed you were quoting from the judgment, since you included a citation (and that paragraph is quoted extensively across the web, including an extract on the Swarb legal website).

        Having found the judgment on bailii http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1765/J98.html, it says:

        "...our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbour's ground, he must justify it by law."

        My point remains the same, that the right to quiet enjoyment is not unassailable. The case turned upon the validity of a warrant; if it had been ruled valid, the entry would have been lawful, just as, today, a court bailiff has the legal authority to execute a warrant of possession obtained by a landlord.

        In addition, if, as you claim "You cannot reserve a right of access in an agreement, you must have the personal consent of the tenant", then how do you explain s.11(6) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which says:

        "(6) In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair."?

        Comment


          Unless my memory is playing up, Bill65 is a proponent of the 'respected' FOTL faction. In which case this argument would be better transferred to TaB.
          I offer no guarantee that anything I say is correct. wysiwyg

          Comment


            Originally posted by jta View Post
            Unless my memory is playing up, Bill65 is a proponent of the 'respected' FOTL faction. In which case this argument would be better transferred to TaB.
            You're not wrong. See #32 et al:

            http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...reemen+agent46
            'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

            Comment


              With respect, you are becoming confused between a contract between parliament and the crown and one between private persons.The reason I said to read lord Camden judgement, it gives great insight into how the courts are thinking.

              AS i understand the issue the thread is decussing a landlord right of entry reservrd in an instrument creating a term certain. If such a clause where enforcable it would distroy the concept of exclusive possession, and a person or persons would be enjoying nothing more than a contractual license, and not a right in rem, protected by the crown holding good against the whole world. In other words a landlord cannot derogate from grant i.e give with one hand and take with the other it is a tenancy or it is not and this matters not what is contained in any statutory act.You need the personal consent of the tenant to enter his land.Let that be the end of the matter.

              We do not deny that Parliament has the right to make laws for us by virtue of the fact, among others, that it is elected by us. If that is so, if Parliament does something contrary to the principles that give it meaning as a legislative body, it is acting ultra vires.
              LJ Laws.
              Regards Bill.

              Comment


                What about this clause in my tenancy agreement which says:

                "The landlord may re-enter the property and immediately thereupon the tenancy shall absolutely determine without prejudice to the other rights and remedies of the landlord if the tenant has not complied with any obligation in this agreement or should the rent be in arrears by more than fourteen days whether formally demanded or not."

                and I am still waiting for the bailiffs who told me they have a queue of 8 weeks before they can physically get in! And it has taken me over 16 months to get this far!

                Comment


                  VK: Your clause is unenforceable and not worth the paper it is written on., Where did you get the agreement??

                  Bill: weird, seriously weird...

                  Cheers!
                  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


                    Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                    VK: Your clause is unenforceable and not worth the paper it is written on., Where did you get the agreement??
                    I remember that such clauses have been discussed before, and they seem to be fairly common and to actually have a legal use.
                    Legal experts could comment.

                    Jeffrey said:
                    It's called a Proviso for Re-entry. It has to be present as a triggering mechanism. As others have posted, it is subject to a host of statutory overlay. Nevertheless, it can operate literally if T is no longer resident.
                    c.f. http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ing-payable%29

                    Comment


                      Thanks JJ, I stand corrected!!
                      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


                        Chicken and egg problem isn't it. If I do not gain entry I cannot determine if T is still resident and if not then to exercise the proviso. Have there been any legal precedent to cases like this where LL actually exercised the clause and T then sued or LL criminally charged and what were the judgement in these cases. Not that I would like to risk that of course but would be interesting to know.

                        Comment


                          It is a cornerstone of the British Constitution that Parliament is supreme and can accordingly never act ultra vires.

                          If this idea that a landowner enjoys absolute exclusive possession of his land come what may is taken to its logical conclusion then it follows that no one can grant a right of way over his land. Nay more, none of us would be entitled to use a public highway without the consent of the owner. And yet again, it renders the very concept of a tenancy untenable because how can a man retain an interest in land and yet purport to grant an exclusive right of occupation to another?

                          Comment


                            And your answer to my question is?

                            Comment


                              I shall say one thing only: the court has no option but to enforce a persons will. Parliament is sovereign subject to the conqueror's will, for it was his will which created it. parliament cannot alter,amend or otherwise re-write it-That is the law.
                              Regards Bill

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by bill65 View Post
                                I shall say one thing only: the court has no option but to enforce a persons will.
                                I think that is where you are getting muddled.
                                'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X