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 theartfullodger View Post
    It's probably been said before (but I can't be a***d to search..) but here is OFT's views....


    Think this subject is one on which the competing "champions" will never agree...

    Ho hum, here's to good old British free speech eh?
    But it is the ramblings of a defunct organisation safely ignored.
    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 jpkeates View Post
      While I don't agree 100% with the reasoning - Exclusive possession is why a landlord can't enter, not quiet enjoyment,
      that is excellent practical advice which is what most people seem to need.

      The first sentence should probably be "Short Answer - If you are a landlord and your tenant refuses you access to your property, you cannot enter without a court order."
      Which is wrong.

      its sound advice but what it should say is the correct position that if you do enter there is risk of your committing a criminal offence however under the 1977 Act it is if only you have committed one of the grounds, and as explained above a forced entry after refusal because the gas is leaking would not result in a criminal conviction ie you cannot be said to be interfering with the enjoyment and comfort of their home, nor intimidating then or harassing them by preventing them from being blown up.

      Even if you wish that with some tenants that might be a good thing....
      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


        There's a difference between arguing an intellectual point of law and giving practical advice.

        If a tenant refuses to allow a landlord to enter (even if the landlord believes that they have a valid reason to enter) the landlord should be advised to get a court order in order to obtain entry.
        Debate about quiet enjoyment vs exclusive possession and what constitutes an emergency is interesting (to me at least) but not actually helpful.

        I'm happy to be wrong about the intellectual debate (it doesn't really matter if I'm right or not).
        I'm less happy to give someone suspect advice based on my brilliant analysis from the safety of my computer.

        There's a reason that professional landlords like housing associations, local authorities and utility companies routinely get court orders in order to enter premises over the tenants objection (or even when they're slower to agree than is helpful).
        Courts have entire days and whole courts (multiple) every week dedicated to issuing these type of order.
        They're not doing it because no one's thought through the legal position carefully enough.
        They're doing it because it's good practice to resolve the debate about whether entry satisfies the current court interpretation of grounds to enter before actually entering.

        You're right that bursting into a property and saving the life of a tenant from a gas leak is unlikely to result in a criminal conviction,
        but to be defending your actions, you're in court anyway
        (and arguing before an unreliable judge about whether you ought to have "reasonably" considered that the tenant might be, as they turned out to be, a gas fitter who'd fixed the problem.)

        Sound advice is what people are hoping to find here.
        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


          Except that there cannot be sound advice before the relevant legislation is analysed and understood (as much as possible).
          Not reading, and not understanding the legislation is how we end up with fiascos like Superstrike.

          As for emergencies, it is clear and beyond doubt that no notice is require. A landlord entering in case of a genuine emergency will not even have to defend himself in court.
          Giving 24hour notice in writing upon a genuine emergency is nonsensical. The law recognises it explicitly. This is clearly no a case of interest.

          Comment


            But we're* not in a position to prevent a fiasco like Superstrike.
            We're in the position of dealing with the consequences that arise from it.

            *Well I'm not, apologies if you're an MP or judge,

            The advice that we should give a landlord is to re-issue the Prescribed Information when an AST goes Periodic.
            That might be pointless (and I think it is), confuses the tenant (which I think it does) and the judge in Superstrike might have got the law wrong.
            But none of that helps a landlord when he want to know what to do when his lease goes periodic.

            And none of this is anything to do with your point about notice and emergencies, which I think is correct.
            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


              You've completely missed my point, haven't you?

              Comment


                Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
                You've completely missed my point, haven't you?
                I hope not.
                I think I have understood your point and disagree with it.

                You're suggesting that we should analyse and understand the legal situation and give advice based on that understanding.
                I'm suggesting that we don't do that.
                It's too complicated and confuses people.

                "Unless it's a life threatening emergency, you cannot enter a property if the tenant refuses entry" is not correct, but it's actually helpful.
                A five page essay that outlines the correct situation is not useful to most people.
                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


                  When did 'emergency' morphed into 'life-threatening emergency'?

                  I think you haven't understood my point, and that these latest posts do not bring anything to this thread.

                  Comment


                    I changed emergency into life threatening emergency as it is more useful advice.
                    It remains, as you say, inaccurate.

                    While it may be disappointing that I am unable to grasp your point,
                    for which I apologise,
                    simply noting that I haven't understood it doesn't move me any closer to the light-bulb moment that obviously eludes me.

                    I am neither trolling or trying to cause a problem.
                    I am trying (and obviously failing) to contribute.
                    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


                      Giving advice on legal issues without basing it on a proper consideration of the law is like building a house on sand. If you get to court it is the law which counts. Practical advice is all very well, but the person getting the advice must know where they stand in law so that they can weigh up which course of action to take.

                      The reason I started this thread, not only here but in a few other forums, was not to encourage landlords to enter in the face of opposition by their tenants, but to warn tenants that any advice that they have the right to exclude their landlords in all circumstances, whatever their tenancy agreement says, is wrong. Whilst it may be the case that the consequences of refusing access are unlikely to be adverse to the tenant, adverse consequences cannot be ruled out. Apart from that, it is inappropriate to say something is the case when it is not. It is rather like saying that you can exceed the speed limit on a quiet country road because the chances of being caught are low.

                      The idea that a tenant has an absolute right to refuse access is so widely disseminated on the internet that, not unreasonably, many have come to believe it. If someone like me comes along and questions what appears to be set in stone they have to justify why they consider the widely held view to be incorrect. I have approached the question from different angles, but it is plain that few are convinced by my arguments. That is, I suggest, because they are unwilling to be convinced on the grounds that (a) it jolly well ought to be the case, what with an Englishman's home being his castle, that you can refuse your landlord access and (b) the majority opinion as expressed on the internet cannot be wrong. On other questions the majority opinion as expressed on the internet has been shown to be wrong.

                      I agree with jjl that if there is a "right to refuse entry" when there is a covenant to allow entry I wish someone would tell me where I can find it. The snag is that those who argue there is such a right agree that a landlord can go to court to get an order requiring the tenant to allow entry. Either (a) the landlord has the right to enter in which case he can exercise it, or (b) the tenant has the right to refuse access in which case the court cannot make an order. The position is only different if there is some restriction imposed by law (other than arising from reasonableness) on the landlord's right to enter where the tenant has given it as a term of the tenancy.

                      Comment


                        I think we ought to keep emergencies out of this discussion as different rules apply.

                        The key question is this:

                        Where the terms of a tenancy, being reasonable, provide for a landlord to enter for specific purposes and the landlord, complying with any conditions attached to the right and acting reasonably, wants to enter does the tenant have the right to refuse access? Note: "Does the tenant have the right to refuse access?" is not the same question as "If the tenant bars the way can the landlord enter?"

                        Comment


                          I believe that the post proposed by leaseholdanswers should be the content of the sticky thread to which users can be referred
                          when they have a question about rights of entry.

                          The debate about rights to access can then be carried on elsewhere by those interested in the discussion.

                          Mixing practical advice and fine points of the law simply isn't that helpful.
                          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


                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            I changed emergency into life threatening emergency as it is more useful advice.
                            Making stuff up is never useful advice.

                            No-one argues that details of the law should be given every time someone asks for advice. In fact, I would not rely on anyone but a solicitor with a demonstrated expertise in the relevant areas to do that.
                            It is possible to give useful, concise advice, which is accurate and does not give false impressions. But it requires some level of understanding of the issue.

                            False impressions tend to end up being considered facts once repeated a few times on the web...

                            As mentioned by LC, it may also influence tenants. And round and round we go until everything is just noise (as it is on many forums. Cough, MSE, cough...)

                            Comment


                              I do not propose to comment on lha's proposals. However, I will say this:

                              Any suggestion that a landlord cannot enter against the tenant's wishes except with a court order is:

                              (a) fine from a landlord's perspective because clearly if the landlord keeps away nothing will flow from doing nothing;

                              (b) not fine from a tenant's perspective because a failure to allow access may be a breach of covenant and damages flow from a breach of covenant where the landlord incurs a loss.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                                (b) not fine from a tenant's perspective because a failure to allow access may be a breach of covenant and damages flow from a breach of covenant where the landlord incurs a loss.
                                Something that is well (and fairly) covered in the proposed text.
                                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

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X