L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

[jpkeates]

The difficulty with the law is that it doesn't really help a landlord standing on the pavement being denied reasonable access,
or a tenant who's landlord just waltzes in when they're out.

I would expect a court to properly pick its way through the various rights of access and privacy/quiet enjoyment,
but, I would suggest in most cases, no one really understands their rights or wants to go to court.
The short term nature of renting means that a dispute tends to be resolved by ending the tenancy - which tilts the balance in favour of the landlord (who may, as in bnesbit's case, be in the wrong from the sound of it).

[Lawcruncher]

The difficulty with the law etc

I agree that pragmatic considerations will usually outweigh the legal niceties. However, it is important that both landlords/agents and tenants understand the law. I started this thread because much misinformation has been disseminated and because both sides may adopt entrenched positions which cannot be justified. Landlords/agents may adopt an "it's my/the landlord's property and you are a mere tenant" attitude and want (as you put it) to waltz in willy-nilly. Tenants may take a "they shall not pass" attitude based upon an inadequate understanding of how the landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment interacts with other terms of the tenancy. Both are equally wrong.

[jpkeates]

I agree - this thread has taught me a lot.

It still seems to me anomalous that there should remain sufficient legal conflict between two sets of "competing" rights dependant for resolution on a consensus of reasonableness, that hasn't been resolved or even fine tuned by case law.
How many inspections a year would normally be "reasonable" or how much notice would normally be sufficient to overcome the most reluctant tenant's objections?

[Lawcruncher]

I think the way to look at it is not so much as competing rights, but rather how the respective obligations of landlord and tenant interact. The covenant for quiet enjoyment takes effect subject to the other terms of the lease except to the extent that they undermine the basic nature of a tenancy, which is to grant an exclusive right of occupation. Neither the covenant for quiet enjoyment nor the right to exclusive occupation are absolute.

[BoopDMX85]

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/201...ed-properties/

Tessa's new post competes against some of the writings in this thread. The mention of compensation is interesting, as all tenants can now sue for trespass right?

[Lawcruncher]

I have posted in the thread by setting out posts 1 and 2 in this thread. Let's see what she says.

In the meantime, my argument is that if the tenancy agreement provides for access the tenant cannot unilaterally alter it terms. The landlord, so long as he complies with any conditions attached to the right of entry, has permission to enter and cannot therefore be trespassing. It is like having a right of way over your neighbour's property. If the neighbour obstructs it and says you are not to go on his land, if you remove the obstruction and go on the land even in the teeth of furious objection, you are not trespassing. Your actions may result in a breach of the peace, damage to property or personal injury for which you must face the consequences, but you will not have trespassed.

[jjlandlord]

On the same topic, another recent discussion on Tessa's blog:
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/201...landlord-help/

[Lawcruncher]

I have posted there too.

As to the other thread, Tessa felt (rightly having regard to the rules she has set out) that my contribution was too long.

[Hippogriff]

As a "sticky" should this thread not be 37 pages long? Can it be rationalised so it gives - what you would hope - is a clear and concise answer to the point it is trying to make? Maybe by the OP or someone on the Moderator team?

This doesn't seem to serve a good purpose as a "sticky" at the moment.

I'm not suggesting it should be rationalised and locked... but just that it's grown into something that's actually now unhelpful, when the intention was for it to be helpful and, I expect, stop people starting similar threads if they saw this.

[Lawcruncher]

Another new blog on Tessa's site: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/201...comment-224986

[Ericthelobster]

As a "sticky" should this thread not be 37 pages long?

Yeah, I seem to recall making that point when it was only about 15 pages long!

I'm not suggesting it should be rationalised and locked...

Actually, I'd suggest exactly that - I think in most forums stickys are locked. If I was Emperor, I think I'd 'unsticky' the current thread, and beg someone to create a separate locked, summary of it as a sticky.

[Lawcruncher]

The summary is in the first two posts.

[Hippogriff]

Can all the follow-on be deleted to bring it back to being a useful sticky?

[Lawcruncher]

Not sure how deleting the follow-on makes it more useful.

[Ericthelobster]

Not sure how deleting the follow-on makes it more useful.

Well, for starters, the first thing a newbie sees when coming across the thread in question is:

What follows is my analysis of the position. It should not be treated as gospel

... followed by 374 posts (and counting) ostensibly discussing the two summary posts. I think that detracts from them greatly and is pretty confusing for said newbie