L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

[jpkeates]

Could I have insisted on the inspection. The Agent just accepted the tenants excuses.

On a practical level, no agent in their right mind is going to enter a property over the refusal of a tenant to let them in.

What someone could do is tactically not get the tenant's cancellation and knock on the door.
The tenant might be there and refuse entry, but if someone completely different answered, there might be something that could be done.

But I wouldn't expect an agent to bend the rules like that.

And was there any issue as a result of the subletting?

[Jgalley28]

Our agents inspected yesterday and weren't happy. The landlord has now issued an s21 (we kind of felt this was coming at the end of the tenancy in two months) so not disputing it. However yesterdays inspection we were informed if via email but the landlord couldn't attend so the agent rearranged via email for 18th. As we were under the impression that yesterday wasnt happening is it worth a complaint? Technically they breached the 24hr rules as far as I am concerned. Would we gain anything as the new date agreed would have not left them enough time to serve s21 before new tenancy agreement

[vanilla90]

Hi,

Newbie here. This may be an entirely silly question and apologies if so: if I ask my tenant when might be a good time to view the property and they respond back with saying the same day is fine (i.e. less than 24 hours), am I still allowed to go and visit the property or can they hold it against me/is it illegal? All the correspondence was by email and touchwood I seem to have a good working relationship with this tenant.

TIA!

[jpkeates]

Yes, that's fine.

The law in this area is there to provide a framework if you and your tenant are unable to agree.
You can agree things outside the legal minimums.

[theartfullodger]

Indeed: There's nothing unlawful about knocking politely on the front door at a reasonable time & asking calmly if you can come in & have a picnic in the sitting room, right away (or whatever else reason..). But not recommended.

[vanilla90]

Lol. Thanks both. He himself suggested I come and view the property the same evening (I emailed in the morning), but I went down the safe route and viewed the property the following evening. But good to know for the future. :-)

[shoobydoo]

Hi. I tried to read the entire post for an answer, but please could someone advise (probably again) on whether all tenants in a joint AST tenancy have to given permission for landlord to access? What if 3 do and 1 doesn't? Or if one person gives permission and copies all others on the email or whatsapp group chat - can that be assumed permission from all? thanks in advance.

[Lawcruncher]

My basic point is that if the terms of the tenancy include an obligation to allow entry consent has already been given. If the landlord turns up and one of the tenants lets him in he does not need any other tenants, whether present or not, to confirm they are happy for him to be there. If one strongly objects the landlord is wise to withdraw to avoid a breach of the peace.

[shoobydoo]

Thank you.

On another note, I live far away from my property and there are parking restrictions during weekdays, plus I work/have school runs etc so difficult for me to attend repair appts during the week. I have service contracts on the boiler, plumbing & electrics but engineers will only come on weekdays and must have someone present. Is it legal to specifiy in a contract that tenants would need to be present for such service contract visits and indeed other repairs? Can I also specify that if landlord is required to attend, such repairs will need to take place on a weekend?

I ask because my current tenants would not stay home from work and did not want any unsupervised visits. This might be different for future tenants given the "new normal" of working from home, but I just wanted to get it into contract so that there are no misunderstandings later. They could decline the tenancy if this didn't work for them.

[Lawcruncher]

You want to be thinking about such additional clauses.

I think you have to put it to the tenant that if he wants work done he has a choice of the workmen being unsupervised or supervising the work himself or getting someone he trusts to. If he was an owner-occupier that would be his choice and there is no good reason why it should be different for a tenant.

[shoobydoo]

You want to be thinking about such additional clauses.

sorry do you mean I should put suitable clauses into contract?

[Lawcruncher]

sorry do you mean I should put suitable clauses into contract?

Oops! Mental aberration. Sometimes my fingers rush ahead of my brain. I meant:

You do not want to be thinking about such additional clauses.

[shoobydoo]

Any reason why? Would such clauses be unlawful or unreasonable? I did take your suggested approach before but generally got "you are the landlord, it is your responsibility to fix it." and "No we do not want anyone else to have a key" or "please provide a company profile and references for the company you are planning to give key to and then we will decide if they can have a key" and of course, "You (landlord) will be liable for any damage or loss to tenant's items if workmen are left unsupervised".

[Lawcruncher]

Any reason why? Would such clauses be unlawful or unreasonable?

I just thing they would be unworkable.

You have to be firm with the tenants. If works are required over a few days it is quite unreasonable for the tenants to insist that you supervise them. Within reason tenants need to be treated as owner-occupiers and that extends to having to do things like being around to let workmen in or arranging for someone else to.

I have never heard of an owner-occupier asking a plumber to provide references before they let him in.

[BobsToaster]

You have to be firm with the tenants. If works are required over a few days it is quite unreasonable for the tenants to insist that you supervise them

On the contrary, if the works are not an absolute emergency, there is no reason why the tenant can't insist they should be there. Indeed, most reasonable landlords would welcome it! Here's why:

Landlord took it upon himself to do an unannounced property check and let himself in without notice. Tenant was in but in a state of undress/sexual congress with partner. The tenant refused to pay 3 months rent by way of penalty for loss of privacy and told the landlord to get stuffed for his rent because of that breach of the tenancy. Now, granted that's an aggravating factor not applicable to what you have said, but the landlord then went on to do what you suggest is okay:

Several months later, the landlord let himself in with workman to check/replace the electricity meter. They did the necessary work and left. The tenant contended that PC parts that had been left on desk had ceased to work due to electro-static discharge, and refused to pay an additional 3 months rent so those parts could be replaced (at the landlords expense).

The landlord took exception, and took the tenant to court for eviction/rent arrears. Landlord lost, and the court said the tenant had reasonably withheld 3 months worth of rent in damages (albeit that the tenant should have claimed those damages differently in county court) and then agreed with the additional 3 months for PC damages, and then went on to award an additional £1,500 to cover tenants removal costs/court fees etc. as the tenant no longer wanted to live there regardless. Total cost to the landlord was well over £4,000 and that was 20 years ago!

And all because the landlord felt he had a right to do what he liked to his property. What he failed to realise, and what the judge explained; the landlord gives up all and any the right to access the property for the duration of the rental agreement (save for absolute emergencies), and gains an income. The tenant loses an equal sum of his income but gains the property. If either party breaks that arrangement without consent, penalties are due.

That landlord learned an expensive lesson! Don't be like him! If the tenant is absent, and has requested that they be there when someone else is in their home, you only have yourself to blame when they allege that their property ceased working whilst you were there and they weren't, and you were there against their explicit wishes!