L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

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

    S21 coming your way!

    Not bothered about that!
    The rental market is saturated!
    His void period will be sweet justice for me! :-) It took him seven months to find a tenant for his other flat!

    Additionally, why would I want to remain in this property now, seeing that he is letting himself in unannounced? I do not trust living here!

    Suppose I was a dishonest person? If I was a truly vindictive person, I could allege that he was a thief and stole things from me! I would think that a sensible landlord would wait to hear from his tenant first before entry??

    Comment


      theartfullodger,

      A) I called the helplines and spoke to both who confirmed that the landlord must have consent to enter before using his key! Only in cases of genuine emergencies can a landlord let himself in without notice and consent. The tenant must not be inconvenienced by the landlord's actions and must wait for a reply from the tenant to enter the flat.

      B) If he takes me to court for deducting the cost to replace locks because he entered without consent, then he is a fool! I will countersue for so many things, he will end up paying me to live here! He expects the rent right? So let me be and do not use a key to enter the house that I pay him to live in!

      Comment


        Hi Ericthelobster,

        Thanks for your post - some good points that I agree with and some I disagree with :-)

        In reponse to this - You'd have been equally irritated had he inspected at 3pm last Thursday, wouldn't you?
        The answer is - prob not as it would have been a "working day"!

        My genuine irritation is that I believe he took adavantage of the fact that I was away and did not respond! As it was the Easter holidays, one can expect that a tenant would likely be on holiday!!?? He really should have waited to speak with me before entering.

        This landlord already has a holier than thou attitude and in cases like this, the only tactic I can take is hurt him financially. It seems landlords only pay attention to issues when their bank balances are affected!

        I've already stated upthread that an S21 is no concern of mine - I'm not bothered about that at all!

        The more that I stew about this, the only option is for me to get out of here!

        (BTW, homelessness is not an option either, as my company has just purchased an entire block of flats, which employees can rent at subsidized rents, so it's win win for me and a lose lose for him!)

        Comment


          Originally posted by HerilSamika View Post
          A) I called the helplines and spoke to both who confirmed that the landlord must have consent to enter before using his key! Only in cases of genuine emergencies can a landlord let himself in without notice and consent. The tenant must not be inconvenienced by the landlord's actions and must wait for a reply from the tenant to enter the flat.
          I fear that that advice cannot be relied upon as being correct. It certainly conflicts with the views of at least one barrister - see link somewhere in this thread.

          Comment


            That is why I love the law! It can be bent and moulded to fit each individual circumstance.
            A barrister who wins on one point one day, may lose on that same very point another day in front of a different judge. :-)

            Comment


              Directly from Shelter's website:
              http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad..._by_a_landlord


              Unreasonable behaviour by your landlord or letting agent which could count as harassment includes:

              interfering with your post
              entering your home when you are not there or without your permission
              visiting your home regularly without warning, especially late at night
              stopping you from having guests.

              Comment


                Originally posted by HerilSamika View Post
                Directly from Shelter's website:
                http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad..._by_a_landlord


                Unreasonable behaviour by your landlord or letting agent which could count as harassment includes:

                interfering with your post
                entering your home when you are not there or without your permission
                visiting your home regularly without warning, especially late at night
                stopping you from having guests.
                Assuming the purpose of the inspection was to establish the condition of the property you have given consent whether you realise it or not. Section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (which applies if your tenancy is for a term of less than seven years) says:

                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.

                Since the covenant is implied by statute it cannot be an unfair term nor can exercising it be a criminal offence. However, the right must be exercised reasonably. The landlord cannot give notice every day. The landlord is only required to give notice and not to enquire whether the tenant received it. If no objection is made he is entitled to assume there is none and in any event an objection does not change the position. If on arriving at the property the landlord rings the doorbell and after a reasonable interval no one answers the landlord can enter so long as he does not have to force entry. Assuming the landlord leaves the property as he found it there is no cause for action. There has been no trespass since he entered with the tenant's consent.

                Comment


                  Shelter's website (and the gov.uk website) can be a pain: It condenses information from many sources and laws, then states a generality and do not provide any source.
                  The result is confusing, often inaccurate, and a cause of discussions and arguments.

                  And of course, many read it superficially and see only what they want to see.

                  Comment


                    Shelter legal provides much greater detail with chapter & verse but costs: think there may be a free trial
                    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 jjlandlord View Post
                      Shelter's website (and the gov.uk website) can be a pain: It condenses information from many sources and laws, then states a generality and do not provide any source.
                      The result is confusing, often inaccurate, and a cause of discussions and arguments.

                      And of course, many read it superficially and see only what they want to see.
                      The problem with any site intended for the general public is that it cannot go into too much detail because if it does people will not read it. One can therefore excuse generalisations, though not inaccuracies.

                      When posting in this forum I often wonder how much to say. I cannot cover everything in every post. I try not to be annoying by hedging every statement with qualification as that puts people off. Inevitably, if I generalise without saying I am generalising someone comes along and points out the exceptions.

                      The internet is a great resource. A major problem though is that it unfortunately spreads misinformation. The source of the misinformation is often a belief that what is right must be right because it seems right. A principle which is not fully understood is trotted out to justify the position. Those who like the idea run with it and it all snowballs. A classic case was the idea that bank charges are contractual penalties and/or against the UTCCR. In another forum I started this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...rges-penalties. What I said in the opening post may reasonably be described as a summary of the Supreme Court's decision some two years later. You do not need to read to many later posts to see that rational argument was unable to defeat the simplistic equation:

                      Bank charges are far too high = banks charges are unlawful

                      My purpose in starting this thread was not, as some have supposed, to offer comfort to landlords, but rather to counter the simplistic equation:

                      A tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment = A landlord cannot have a right of entry

                      The idea that a tenant can refuse his landlord entry come what may or that a landlord cannot enter without a court order is an idea that tenants like. I do not not blame them for liking it because anyone is bound to feel, at the very least, uncomfortable with the possibility of someone wandering around their home while they are out. As I said above, we cannot be certain how far the courts would go in restraining landlords from exercising a right which the tenant has conceded. Until the courts hold otherwise it is unwise for tenants to assume they have an absolute right to keep their landlords out.

                      Comment


                        Lawcruncher,
                        I appreciate that you've gone into detail in your post to offer a very good explanantion of your point.

                        It's understandable that a tenant may give the landlord access to the property via the tenancy agreement that they sign when they move in, but my problem is that he did not wait to hear from me to see if it was okay to come into my house on Easter Sunday, not that I want to keep him out completely.

                        My severe irritation exists because he entered without consent. As mentioned upthread, him entering while I was away did not afford me the opportunity to secure personal items and secrete sensitive things. Had he waited for my return, I would have had no problem with him entering at "3pm on a Thursday"! :-)

                        He exercised his right to enter, but did not allow me to exercise my right to postpone and arrange an alternative time that was convenient to me - that is the point that I was trying to make in my post.

                        This does seem quite a contentious issue for both landlords and tenants.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by HerilSamika View Post
                          This does seem quite a contentious issue for both landlords and tenants.
                          Mm. I really don't undertstand how some landlords and tenants manage to make such a monumental hash of things.

                          I was called by a tenant a few days ago asking for a minor repair to be carried out. We discussed possible dates and agreed on this morning, while she's at work. Fine by both of us, as in reality neither of us particularly wants to have to make small talk while I do the work, and I can just get on with it in my own time and get out.

                          She trusts me not to root through her knicker drawer, and I trust her not to try to sue me for doing so...

                          So, job done, happy tenant and not an S21 in sight!

                          Comment


                            The access rights of a landlord and the right of a tenant to quiet enjoyment are one (very important) issue.
                            Unilaterally deciding that an action is illegal/wrong and and then deducting unauthorised costs from rent as consequence are a separate and different issue.

                            People can't infringe one right in order to correct or offset an infringement of another.
                            That's how problems escalate.
                            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


                              Understandable.
                              However, when one has to put up with a landlord who is a bit rougue, wholly legally ignorant and simply downright disgusting, then extracting a financial justice is the only way forward in my circumstance. Sometimes, you have to make people pay attention in the only way that they can notice. Writing polite letters and pointing out the law does not work in my case.

                              Comment


                                My landlord is selking the property. Our contract stipulates his right to access at "mutually agreeable times" and on 24 hour written notice (mark the wrod AND not OR).

                                My position is simple: let's stick to the law. But nobody seems really sure about what the law can enforce when two rights come into collision: my landlord's right to access at certain times vs. my right to privacy and quiet enjoyment. And none can tell what is reasonable and what is not. It seems -in this particular instance- the UK law is a poor instrument, trusting in the parties's goodwill and common sense rather tan establishing any clear guideline.

                                How many days per week? For how long? I woud think once a week is already disturbing and should be plenty for the landlord, but he thinks it should be twice a week and up to two hours each time.

                                What does the UK law have to say about this?

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X