L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

[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.

[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. :-)

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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

[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?

[theartfullodger]

Aye, insist, get court order, takes about as long as an s21 eviction.

[CWattana]

I actually live overseas

I have very recently had problems with my tenant, in the end the house was left in a complete mess. Several times she agreed to let the agent or my son visit to inspect. Each time she cancelled at very short notice. Excuses such as child has sickness bug, child in hospital, have to go to child's school.

After exiting I found out that she had others living there. Could I have insisted on the inspection. The Agent just accepted the tenants excuses.

[Handson]

I take it you mean "no surrender document was signed & agreed by landlord & tenant". It may be an implied surrender - see e.g.
https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/20...der-explained/

Can be tricky: It would depend on other things in addition to your very brief description. Are you asking about an actual real situation that has happened or just wondering?

Yes that's a real situation. About to apply to court for possession and T has SMS that they moved to another city. No forwarding address. Deal with some other guy for keys and payment. Like they washed their hands of it. Which isn't consistent with someone who wants to live there.

I don't even know if they have move furniture out. T said they didn't have money to fix car.

[theartfullodger]

I take it you mean "no surrender document was signed & agreed by landlord & tenant". It may be an implied surrender - see e.g.
https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/20...der-explained/

Can be tricky: It would depend on other things in addition to your very brief description. Are you asking about an actual real situation that has happened or just wondering?

[Handson]

What if tenancy was not surrendered, tenant abandoned it without informing the landlord. Does going in conflict with their right to enjoyment if they don't live there or have moved to other cities?

[Lawcruncher]

The starting point is that a landlord is only entitled to access for any purpose if (a) the tenant gives his consent or (b) the terms of the tenancy allow access for that purpose. As to (a) you have no problem if the tenant consents. As to (b) "the terms of the tenancy" are not quite the same as "the terms set out in the tenancy agreement" as terms may be implied, whether by statute or the common law.

A term allowing access must be reasonable and not such that its exercise would be a breach of the landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment or a derogation from grant. In this respect a tenant's right to excusive possession is not absolute. Accordingly, that right does not come into conflict with any right of the landlord to access. The way to look at it is that what the landlord grants is a right of exclusive possession subject to reasonable rights of access.

The right must not only be reasonable but also reasonably exercised. So, while section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies "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" it is implicit that the right must be exercised reasonably, even though on the face of it the right could be exercised daily.

If the terms allow access for a specific purpose then no consent needs to be sought from the tenant to access for that purpose. All that is required is to comply with any conditions attached to the right. It is though important to realise that it is one thing to have a right and another to exercise it if doing so risks injury to persons, damage to property or a breach of the peace.

[jpkeates]

It depends on what your tenancy agreement says.

Landlords have a general right in legislation to inspect the condition of the property having given 24 hours notice (but not for any other reason). So if the correct notice is given, no further consent is required (although, as noted, it would be a good idea).

If the tenant declines the request for access, you have two conflicting sets of rights, the landlords right of access and the tenant's right to exclude anyone they want from the property. Neither right has a greater priority, so a court's decision is needed to overcome one right or the other.

If your tenancy agreements give other access, that's up to the strength of the contract and the validity/fairness of the terms. Although, unless the tenant refused, any remedy the tenant sought would be post event and have to be based on the loss incurred by the tenant.

The issue would be the exact wording of the terms allowing access.

[Jmanville]

A question that so far I have not really seen answered. Consensus seems to be landlords have right to access if 24 hours notice is given to inspect and/or review repairs AND permission is given. It could be argued the AST when signed gives permission for this but it would be advised to get further permission. The question is what if you give 24 hrs or more notice, you get no response (so that means your permission has not been denied or given) if you go there and no one is home so they have broken the appointment can you go in using the master keys under the AST consent? Please note in this instance the tenant never replies to give or deny permission to any written communication or text messages and does not have email, but previously has been there for the appointment and let me in. But also on another occasion has been going at the time of the appointment and refused to stay to speak to me, or give me another convenient time.