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 Mr. Private View Post
    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.
    Simply not true.

    LL may retain a right of access. That right is also implied by statute if the repairing covenant is implied: see s.11(6) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985:

    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.

    Nothing about 'mutual agreement'; albeit, obviously, if T refuses access, then LL would need a court order to enforce that right of access in order to avoid allegations of breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment, but the fact remains that LL may retain a right of access and that right is enforceable.

    Comment


      And I've today discovered:*

      s.16 Housing Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/16

      It shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy that the tenant shall afford to the landlord access to the dwelling-house let on the tenancy and all reasonable facilities for executing therein any repairs which the landlord is entitled to execute.

      s.8(2) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/70/section/8

      The landlord, or a person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable tinmes of the day, on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the tenant or occupier, enter premises to which this section applies for the purpose of viewing their state and condition.

      *Thanks to theartfullodger and mariner

      Comment


        Ah, we're famous mariner!!

        can't remember if it's been mentioned before but my understanding re "notice in writing" is that it must be in writing - not email, not 'phone, not TXT, not verbal discussion on't doorstep, writing-on-paper... Yes, aware there have been cases about email being accepted by courts but in this contentious area it would seem prudent to go by the book if expecting trouble...
        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 westminster View Post
          obviously, if T refuses access, then LL would need a court order to enforce that right of access in order to avoid allegations of breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment, but the fact remains that LL may retain a right of access and that right is enforceable.
          I think the position is somewhat similar to that when you have a right of way which is blocked. The law allows you to abate the obstruction, but does not encourage it.

          If you have a right you ought to be able to exercise it otherwise it is no right at all. If you have no right how can you apply to the court to exercise it?

          Comment


            Approbation from westminster is praise indeed.
            LCs response is confusing. If I have right of way which is blocked I have the right to remove (abate). It would then be upto person causing blockage to prove my actions were unlawful. Whilst the Law will not encourage civil disobedience, it can only prevent based on existing precedents and public consent
            eg Poll Tax 'riots' changed the Law.
            Reasonable is oft defined as the opinion of the average person on the Clapham omnibus. Why not Liverpool or Grimsby omnibus?
            I hope we have demonstrated T cannot prevent reasonbable, occ LL access to his property without need for Court access order and 'quiet enjoyment' only relates to freedom from LL harrassment

            Comment


              What I meant was that a landlord has the right to enter when he reserves it, but that he needs to be careful how he exercises it to avoid any breach of the Protection from Eviction Act or otherwise causing a breach of the peace

              Comment


                Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                can't remember if it's been mentioned before but my understanding re "notice in writing" is that it must be in writing - not email, not 'phone, not TXT, not verbal discussion on't doorstep, writing-on-paper... Yes, aware there have been cases about email being accepted by courts but in this contentious area it would seem prudent to go by the book if expecting trouble...
                Prudent yes. But I believe that service in electronic form is perfectly fine if the medium has been agreed in advance (from Civil Procedure Rules).

                Comment


                  Originally posted by westminster View Post
                  Simply not true.

                  LL may retain a right of access. That right is also implied by statute if the repairing covenant is implied: see s.11(6) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985:

                  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.

                  Nothing about 'mutual agreement'; albeit, obviously, if T refuses access, then LL would need a court order to enforce that right of access in order to avoid allegations of breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment, but the fact remains that LL may retain a right of access and that right is enforceable.
                  Originally posted by mariner View Post
                  Approbation from westminster is praise indeed.
                  LCs response is confusing. If I have right of way which is blocked I have the right to remove (abate). It would then be upto person causing blockage to prove my actions were unlawful. Whilst the Law will not encourage civil disobedience, it can only prevent based on existing precedents and public consent
                  eg Poll Tax 'riots' changed the Law.
                  Reasonable is oft defined as the opinion of the average person on the Clapham omnibus. Why not Liverpool or Grimsby omnibus?
                  I hope we have demonstrated T cannot prevent reasonbable, occ LL access to his property without need for Court access order and 'quiet enjoyment' only relates to freedom from LL harrassment

                  What court in the UK is going to grant a injunction to LL !

                  Only option is possession order,which is easy when it comes to AST

                  There are still a huge amount of Statutory Assured tenancy's,Assured tenancy's,Regulated tenancy's,Council and Housing Association tenancy's in the UK,which vastly out number AST...

                  what if they refuse access to a LL.

                  What then...
                  Thunderbirds are go

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by 45002 View Post
                    What court in the UK is going to grant a injunction to LL !
                    Two that I can recall in my career; one a long leasehold and one AST, neither for arrears purposes, but repair and inspection/breach matters.
                    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.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                      Two that I can recall in my career; one a long leasehold and one AST, neither for arrears purposes, but repair and inspection/breach matters.
                      Hmmmmmmm

                      Must have been expense for the LL then to get theses injunctions !

                      Do you know which courts theses injunctions where granted ? so i can ask for a transcript of the cases...

                      or a link,if theses cases are documented on the www

                      Thank you
                      Thunderbirds are go

                      Comment


                        Just fell over this OFT position in OFT356 (yes, I know, guidelines not law...) -
                        Rights of entry to the property
                        3.32
                        We would object to a provision giving the landlord an excessive right to enter the rented property. Under any kind of lease or tenancy, a landlord is required by common law to allow his tenants 'exclusive possession' and 'quiet enjoyment' of the premises during the tenancy. In other words, tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant's consent, except for good reason.


                        3.33
                        The same principles apply to terms giving excessive rights to the landlord to demand access for prospective new tenants or purchasers to view the premises.

                        3.34
                        A term dealing with rights of entry is unlikely to be challenged if it reflects the ordinary legal position. This recognises that a landlord who is responsible for carrying out repairs to the property needs reasonable access for two specific purposes: firstly, in order to check whether repairs are necessary,19 and secondly, to carry them out.20 Reasonable access means access at reasonable times, and with at least 24 hours notice in writing, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
                        Sounds a reasonable position to me......

                        19 & 20 refer to these footnotes (must getalife...)
                        19
                        Section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 allows a landlord with repairing obligations
                        under section 11(1) to enter the premises on 24 hours notice in writing in order to inspect them.
                        .......

                        20
                        There is an implied term in a tenancy agreement that the tenant will give the landlord reasonable access if the agreement imposes liability on the landlord to carry out repairs (see Saner v Bilton (1878) 7 Ch D 815). In relation to assured tenancies, section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 implies a similar right.
                        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


                          I think the OFT is confused.

                          We have to distinguish between the terms in which the right is granted and how that right is exercised.

                          The point can be made by considering section 11(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.

                          Interpreted literally, the implied covenant allows the landlord to enter as often as he likes so long as he does so at a reasonable time of the day and gives at least 24 hours' notice. However, being phrased as such does not undermine the basic requirement that a tenancy involves exclusive occupation because it is implied that the right will be exercised reasonably. There is no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment or derogation from grant until the landlord actually does something.

                          I do not see therefore how a right of access for prospect tenants to view phrased similarly can be an unfair term

                          Comment


                            I really don't see how a tenancy can be viable if the T denies LL access.
                            If any T were to deny me reasonable access to inspect the property or do a repair or gas check at a time convenient for them, then the only notice they'd get from me would be an S21.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Pobinr View Post
                              I really don't see how a tenancy can be viable if the T denies LL access.
                              If any T were to deny me reasonable access to inspect the property or do a repair or gas check at a time convenient for them, then the only notice they'd get from me would be an S21.
                              I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'viable'.

                              It might be inconvenient and perturbing for the Ll to be denied access in the short term (he can always gain it eventually through due legal process, of course), but it doesn't mean the tenancy cannot proceed. It will proceed for a time, whether he serves a s21 or not.
                              '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


                                vi·a·ble   [vahy-uh-buhl] Show IPA
                                adjective
                                1.
                                capable of living.
                                2.
                                Physiology .
                                a.
                                physically fitted to live.
                                b.
                                (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
                                3.
                                Botany . able to live and grow.
                                4.
                                vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses: a period of history that few teachers can make viable for students.
                                5.practicable; workable: a viable alternative.


                                Isn't it obvious!

                                Not Viable as in not workable or practical. If a T won't let LL inspect then must have something to hide & would ring alarm bells. Why would any LL not serve S21 in such a circumstance.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X