L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

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

    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.
    So are we; we strongly believe in local Libraries being supported through groups like Friends of The library.
    Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.


      What Court in UK is going to grant a injunction to a LL,just because the T wont let the LL in.

      Has anyone come across such a court case !

      Only option would be a possession order and only after the correct notices and so on have been served on the T.
      Thunderbirds are go


        Possible scenario:

        L grants a seven year lease to to T. There is an obligation on L to comply with gas regulations. T refuses access for three years.

        Is court going to:

        (a) order forfeiture of lease for failure to allow access

        (b) order T to allow access

        (c) make no order at all?


          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
          Possible scenario:

          L grants a seven year lease to to T. There is an obligation on L to comply with gas regulations. T refuses access for three years.

          Is court going to:

          (a) order forfeiture of lease for failure to allow access

          (b) order T to allow access

          (c) make no order at all?

          what about tenancy then

          AST OK after 6 months,they can be served notice and so on

          There are still a huge amount of Assured tenancy's and Regulated tenancy's left in the UK.

          what if they refuse access to a LL.

          There also council and Housing Association tenancy's who could refuse access !

          What then...
          Thunderbirds are go


            Forgot about this thread http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...888#post333888
            Thunderbirds are go


              Found this case which was partially about LL getting access, but it went to mediation so nowt definite..

              Kahlon v Isherwood
              A clause in a Tomlin order settling proceedings
              between an existing assured tenant and the
              landlord did not amount to statutory notice
              that the new tenancy would be an assured
              shorthold tenancy.
              Court of Appeal
              19 May 2011
              Source: Transcript [2011] EWCA Civ 602.
              Mr Isherwood (Mr I) had been the assured tenant
              of Mrs Kahlon (K) since 1994. There had been
              several sets of possession proceedings, the
              most recent of which was started in 2007 on the
              grounds of rent arrears and alleged failure by Mr
              I to provide access to the property. The dispute
              went into mediation and a settlement was agreed
              Interesting perhaps from an AT/AST perspective... if I read it right T, with AT, was persuaded to sign AST but then found still to have AT...

              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...


                Whilst looking for something else I found this in Megarry & Wade:

                Landlord's right to view. The tenant is under an obligation to permit the landlord to enter and view the state of repair in cases where the landlord is liable to repair them. The landlord may also have a statutory right to enter and view in other cases. But apart from these, unless he has reserved a right of entry, he has no right to enter the premises during the term, however good his reason, for he has given the right of exclusive occupation as long as the tenancy endures. (My italics)

                This confirms the point I have made that the tenant's right to exclusive occupation is not absolute and is subject to what the parties agree. I just add that the right reserved must not be such as to undermine the basic requirement of a tenancy that there must be exclusive possession so that what is granted is a licence and not a tenancy.


                  Originally posted by bill65 View Post
                  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
                  Ummmm, ok........not heard of the Bill of Rights 1689 then? To clarify, "Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions (including any executive or judicial bodies as they may exist). Furthermore, it implies that the legislative body may change or repeal any prior legislative acts."

                  Enforcing an individual's will against all other considerations pretty much amounts to anarchy, as far as I can tell....

                  The Court has no option but to uphold the LAW. That includes the law relating to rights to privacy, rights to enjoyment of peaceful life (both within the HRA1998) and also the common law of trespass.......relevant because where by contractual agreement the tenant occupies a premises as his HOME, any unlawful entry is considered trespass.....and in answer to some earlier comments about damages, trespass can incur damages which are not in fact related to actual personal losses.

                  It should be noted that where a tenant has failed to honour statutory rights of a landlord, in respect of the Landlords and Tenants Act, or in respect of contractual rights agreed at commencement of tenancy, the landlord is in a position to challenge the validity of that contract, or gain enforcement of those rights, through a court - but not off his/her own back without following due process. Due process CAN include, as mentioned by an earlier poster, advising in writing on at least two occasions that the landlord will be entering on a given date at a given time UNLESS hearing to the contrary. Obviously sufficient notice should be given.

                  The same applies in reverse - if a landlord has, at any time, breached contract by entering without notification and/or agreement, the contract can be challenged in the courts.

                  One thing that did interest me was the statement by a poster that their landlord's brother-in-law operates a business from the garage........you may want to report that, as if you're the tenant, he's operating from YOUR place of residence. Plus I'll bet that your contract states you won't use the premises as a place of business. BIL's actions may be illegal, check it out.


                    Hi All.

                    I haven't read through this extensive forum about viewing or inspection a premises but would like to kindly ask advice about it if anyone would be so kind to help me with?

                    I have requested of my tenant to view the property for inspection. This is the first time in a couple of years and because the property is located nearly 2 hrs drive away, I don't get down there very often. However, I have reason to visit next week so have given 9 days notice for the visit.

                    The tenant tells me they will be going away on holiday that day convenient?) but I am not likely to be able to visit again very soon.

                    My question is, can I enter the premises if they are not there and do I legally require their permission to enter if they are not there?
                    I had some work done on the boiler recently and really want to see what was done but as said won't get another opportunity to visit for a while to come.

                    I would appreciate any help on this. Many thanks


                      Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                      ...when the tenancy is short term no one is going to take the time and trouble to go to court.
                      As a tenant with experience of this, I would like to share my opinion with the landlords and tenants on this forum:

                      I have (and would) take you to court. Having once had a simple 6 month contract for a flat, I was paid £800 by my then-landlord for entering my premises after I expressly told him "Not on that day...", and he let himself in anyways.

                      I took him to court not only for harassment, and breach of contract, but for a missing item on the same day. Like most contracts, it left the whole 'right to landlord access' mostly as-is. There were no specifics attached to that part of the contract, however I made my case to the court that he had, in fact, breached it anyways. I won't go into detail, but I would warn all landlords who feel 'brave': If you mess around like this with the wrong tenant, you won't be the one who wins.

                      Although this particular landlord in question attempted to hide behind the law (or rather, lack-there-of), he still paid out when I challenged him on it. It would be more-beneficial if there was more of a law to actually follow; as it is, it's all of a mostly-implied nature with few specifics. That being as it is: it's not difficult for a tenant to claim harassment.

                      Noting the 'stolen' item: The landlord, of course, claims he never took it. However, I, of course, forced him to pay out for it anyways. He had the audacity to enter onto a premises I paid him for, without my express permission, so in all fairness he brought that upon himself - and I made sure it was.

                      Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                      But who would be stupid enough to risk going in - just in case! Whatever the letter of the law (not read all the above, sorry) I would rather not be in a position to have to defend myself from an accusation of harrassment etc by entering the house when the tenant had refused.
                      I 100% agree with you, islandgirl. That's exactly the point. As it is, the law is, I believe, inadequate. It allows, too often, for landlords to bend and break it. I'm sure they, themselves, believe tenants are constantly breaking it (which I'm sure is true), but the point is BOTH parties must be EXTREMELY wary of breaching any contract, implied or explicit.

                      My warning to Landlords: Do not even dare to enter a property you own while under tenant contract - you gave up your complete right of ownership and access the minute you put it up for rent. Work with your tenants on a mutually agreed upon time and date, and understand that they really do not want to ever see you. We (tenants) understand once in awhile you will need to come around, but other than that: we don't want to see you, just like you don't want to see us.

                      My warning to Tenants: Do not be so unreasonable as to force your landlord to act like an idiot. However, if your landlord is harassing you, in any way shape or form, REPORT THEM immediately. If this means taking them to court, DO SO. Preferably call and/or write a simple note to your landlord to say his/her behavior is not acceptable first; although this is often hard due to their not giving out their personal information. The main point is that it is your responsibility to refuse to be harassed, and to do something about it if you are.

                      Some of you may think I take a hard-line against all this; I do. However, I've found most landlords to be very averted to modifying their contract to be more-reasonable. Adding in such simple clauses as: "The landlord may only enter the property after giving at least 24 hrs notice in writing AND AFTER MUTUALLY AGREEING WITH THE TENANT" - such modifications would be oh-so-simple, yet many do not want to change the contract at all. Point is: work with each other, full stop. Never do what you know is wrong. You do not enter anyone’s home without their agreeing to it. As a human being you should understand this very natural ‘law’. To thwart or ignore it is to bring down a ‘house of bricks’ when you meet a tenant who will not stand to be treated so poorly.

                      In my opinion, landlords need to think of it like this: it’s no longer your house. The house is yours only after the tenancy ends for whatever reason. Until then, it’s not your house, it’s someone else’s. You have certain reasons for which you could enter the property, but ONLY EVER if you have agreed with your tenant’s schedule. They’re the one’s paying ‘you’. Not the other way around.

                      As it is, Landlords / Agents charge £30-50 for a replacement key (of which costs about £4-6 for them to purchase); they charge £30-50 for every 5-minute telephone call they answer to talk to the tenant’s next home agency/landlord about the tenant (that’s around £480 an hour just for answering simple questions). Point is: until we, as the tenants, can charge you £50 for every CORGI certificate you don’t have up-to-date, £50 or for every time you change your flat-viewing date on me, or £50 for every time you are late with responding to my urgent letters, and £50 for every time the boiler blows up due to the landlord not having it inspected, then I simply will not tolerate you to expect such perfection from us as tenants.

                      Contracts such as these are meant to be give-and-take; two-lane roads.


                        Originally posted by Mr. Private View Post
                        I have (and would) take you to court. Having once had a simple 6 month contract for a flat, I was paid £800 by my then-landlord for entering my premises after I expressly told him "Not on that day...", and he let himself in anyways.
                        Hi Mr Private,

                        Would you mind letting us know or providing a link to your court case, so that we can refer to it in future when trying to explain to landlords why they can't just enter their tenants home.


                          Originally posted by Mrs Mug View Post
                          Hi Mr Private,
                          Would you mind letting us know or providing a link to your court case
                          He wouldn't be Mr Private then though, would he?


                            Originally posted by kevT View Post
                            My question is, can I enter the premises if they are not there
                            That would depend on whether they give you permission or not...

                            and do I legally require their permission to enter if they are not there?
                            That would be a "Yes"

                            If you have a reasonable working relationship, hopefully you can explain the problem and situation to the tenant, and they'll let you go in to have a shufti. I'm sure that over the years, the vast majority of my tenants (but not all!) would have had no objection in this scenario. But if not, then understand that 'no' means 'no', and you should accept that with good grace.


                              Thank you for your post Mr Private - very interesting reading and some very good advice...
                              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me


                                Originally posted by bablatrice View Post
                                Hi there

                                We are newish landlords on a steep steep learning curve!! We've read Lawcruncher's guide on landlords rights of access, which is really helpful, but we are still unsure as our tenant isn't blocking our access, but just not responding to calls/texts/notes. We need access this week to get a survey done. We advised them last week this would need done at some point the following week, and advised them at the weekend that it would be in tuesday. This was done by text, which is how we normallly sort things out (very amicably). There was no reply, so we popped a note through the door this morning, and left a voicemail tonight when we phoned. A neighbour of the propertyhas said that one of the tenants have moved away, and their partner is staying to finish work, then will be moving also, but as yet they haven't gave notice and the rent is being paid. We've checked our tenancy agreement and it says:
                                The tenant will permit the landlord and his agents, with or without workmen and others, with all necessary appliances at all reasonable times, to enter upon and examine the condition of the property, fixtures and effects and to execute repairs to the same.

                                Sorry for the long post, but can't seem to get a definitive answer in much of the info available.
                                Our question therefore is, can we enter the property tomorrow morning with the surveyor? Thanks muchly for taking the time to read this.
                                See following link: http://www.lawpack.co.uk/landlord-an...s/item1780.asp

                                Access for the landlord: This is important, as you will need to visit and inspect the rented property from time to time, to ensure that the buy-to-let property is in good condition, and to do any landlord repairs and gas safety checks. You, as landlord, will retain your keys to the rented property, but you should never use these to gain access to the rented property without the tenant’s consent, except in an emergency.

                                Depending on the inspection, you need to decide whether this is classed as an emergency. Failure to complete annual Gas Safety check is a criminal offence with possible penalties of six months imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine. Plus it is a direct health and safety issue to the tenant living in the property. For emergencies it's usually 24 hours notice to enter. I would submit this in writing and keep a copy so that you have proof if you really have to gain access.

                                However, your relationship is currently amicable so why don't wait for the tenant to get back to you first. Is the survey that important?? Rest assured if your survey is a valuation for further borrowing, this will never be classed as an emergency so you have been warned!
                                My Profile Reveals All!!


                                Latest Activity