L's right of access for inspection or viewing?

[Sheena McQ]

Landlords in Scotland are governed by the Property & Housing Chamber First Tier Tribunal, and not the Court. Whilst the tenancy agreement can stipulate the landlord has a right to enter to inspect, or for any other reasonable purpose, they can do so as long as they give 48 hours notice and the tenant consents to the request. The problem is if the tenant either does not consent, or indeed respond to the request. In Scotland a landlord can apply for a Right to Enter, on grant of that the Landlord can/should only exercise that right in the presence of Sheriff Officers. I appreciate the legislation may be different in England.

[Jon66]

Hmm 'asked' vs 'instruct'. I've been asked to take on cases by judges via referrals from them for tribunals. It happens.

"I tell him/her to bog-off, and I tell them clearly in writing, that I have or will be reporting them"
No confidentiality there then, and breach of solicitor conduct rules as well. I might pass on the 'representation' thanks.

[BobsToaster]

What would you do if a judge asked you to represent "a Rachman style landlord"?

Are you from the US? Or just not from the UK? Judges can't instruct anyone to represent In fact, the opposite is quite true, I can and have dropped cases with the full blessing of the judge!

If I ever come across Rachman style landlords (and I do), I tell him/her to bog-off, and I tell them clearly in writing, that I have or will be reporting them to the local authority for breaching whatever it is thats led them to become a 'Rachman style landlord'. That includes but isn't limited to local authority depts in; Landlord registrations and HMOs, Environmental health, Council Tax, Business Rates (NNDR), and Housing Benefit. In extremis, I even been known to contact Housing Benefit dept. to get the HB suspended pending repairs that are needed (withholding of rent), which is totally lawful if done correctly!

A judge telling me (or anyone, whether legally qualified or not) to represent someone. LOL!

[jpkeates]

I only want to weed out Rachman style landlords, but you reckon you can't think of any way to do that?

No I don't think there's any sensible way of doing that.

Rogue landlords don't look any different to great landlords, and, at the point you are considering offering support, you're unlikely to be able to take their tenant's word on their conduct.

What were you planning to do, check their charity giving and social media posts?

What do you do when someone you decline to help says you're doing so because you're prejudiced?
What reasonable selection process are you going to be able to demonstrate to show that your evaluation was fair and your decisions consistent?

What would you do if a judge asked you to represent "a Rachman style landlord"?

[BobsToaster]

Report away

Will do.

But I'm not sure how you would filter out landlords who didn't meet your criteria.

I only want to weed out Rachman style landlords, but you reckon you can't think of any way to do that? Not surprised really!

[QUOTE=jpkeates;n1112117]I have passively/aggressively corrected your use of "whom" in the quote, sorry/QUOTE]

Shame you missed my suggestion that showing some humility and pleasantness would improve how people perceive you...


Still, as ever, you've been the same informative and helpful self you always are. Thanks for trying!

[jpkeates]

Passive aggressive trolling will be reported. I'm not having a pop, but really! Maybe you're a nice guy underneath it all, I don't know but some humility and pleasantness would go a long way!

Report away.
I'm quite proud of my humility.

My question is: Are there many landlords who actually respect their tenants, charge a reasonable rent and do repairs timeously on this forum who are in need of representation at courts, where the advice/representation is provided by a charity?

It would help some landlords who find themselves in situations out of their depth.

But I'm not sure how you would filter out landlords who didn't meet your criteria.

I have passively/aggressively corrected your use of "whom" in the quote, sorry.

[BobsToaster]

[QUOTE=jpkeates;n1112101]

That has nothing to do with a landlord entering without notice

You post in absolutes like how many times, then accuse others of:

[QUOTE=jpkeates;n1112101]

insulting and constitutes trolling.

LOL! How many incorrect pots of yours have I needed to correct? You're being passive/aggressive stating things like:

[that's a good point - which has been made fairly often

Really? Where in this entire thread has someone referred to a court case like the one I posted about?

Passive aggressive trolling will be reported. I'm not having a pop, but really! Maybe you're a nice guy underneath it all, I don't know but some humility and pleasantness would go a long way!

I'm only on here to see what kind of representation/advice/posts landlords receive, and whether I should branch my charity out and recruit a new member of staff, representing landlords in possession cases and before tribunals (in benefit overpayment recovery and or to have direct payments of rent)?

t seems given the lack of any detailed law (statute or caselaw) indicates some level of representation is needed, but representing people lacking in common manners (not referring to you directly here, but the conduct/content of many forum members/posts) leaves something to be desired. Is it worth the effort of representing what might be defined as people whom only rent to make every last penny, Rachman style?

My question is: Are there many landlords who actually respect their tenants, charge a reasonable rent and do repairs timeously on this forum whom are in need of representation at courts, where the advice/representation is provided by a charity?

[Jon66]

. . . xpost. Thank you jpkeates. You said what many were thinking.

[Jon66]

I think if it's that much trouble to ensure the property remains in good condition I'll just give them notice.

Interestingly auto correct turned my ensure into endure (or I miss hit a key) and endurance is what this is becoming. So I think I'll cease posting for a bit and go and light the barbie and have a swim. Tally ho . . .

[jpkeates]

Landlords are allowed to enter by law in emergency without notice which the O/P didn't mention as your point of pedantry attests, but the poster I referred to stated the landlord could enter whilst the tenant is there, then insisting on remaining when the tenant is absent!

That isn't what the post you linked to and quoted said.

Reading nuance can be difficult for some, but please please try...

I have no authority on this forum, but you are making great and helpful points and then devaluing them with this.
It's both insulting and constitutes trolling.

It's easier to be polite and you will get more from the forum if you fit in with the community guidelines.

Which is what the O/P is asking about. So my reply was yes, you might even be legally entitled to do it, but the tenant is equally entitled to sue you for any damages that are likely attributable whilst the tenant was absent!

That's a good point - which has been made fairly often in the decade that this thread has been going!

Just because something is legal doesn't make it a good idea.

[BobsToaster]

That has nothing to do with a landlord entering without notice

Landlords are allowed to enter by law in emergency without notice which the O/P didn't mention as your point of pedantry attests, but the poster I referred to stated the landlord could enter whilst the tenant is there, then insisting on remaining when the tenant is absent! Reading nuance can be difficult for some, but please please try...

My example was what happens in such cases where the tenant is absent. In law, it matters not a jot if they are absent and their goods are damaged or alleged to be damaged by a third party not authorised to be in their home. Which is what the O/P is asking about. So my reply was yes, you might even be legally entitled to do it, but the tenant is equally entitled to sue you for any damages that are likely attributable whilst the tenant was absent!

[jpkeates]

The quote says that it's unreasonable for a tenant to demand a landlord supervise workmen on a job that lasts several days.
That has nothing to do with a landlord entering without notice.

[BobsToaster]

Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
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![/QUOTE]

[Lawcruncher]

A landlord cannot enter a property without the tenant’s consent. If the tenant refuses to allow access then the landlord has recourse through the proper channels to apply for a right to enter. It’s as simple as that.

It is important to distinguish between on the one hand a tenant giving consent and on the other the tenant refusing to allow access.

If a tenant signs an agreement which provides, whether expressly or impliedly, that he will allow the landlord and/or others to enter for a specific purpose then his consent has been given. Provided the purpose is reasonable, the right is exercised reasonably, any required notice is given and the entry is only for a permitted purpose, then the landlord may enter.

Whilst, so far as I know, no court has ever given any guidance on procedure, a landlord must bear in mind though that anyone exercising a right must not do anything which may lead to a breach of the peace, personal injury or damage to property. If the landlord arrives and finds the tenant has changed the locks or the tenant bars the way, the landlord should withdraw. On the other hand, if the tenant has informed the landlord with a right to enter that he may not enter, there is no reason for the landlord not to enter if he has a key and can let himself in while the tenant is not at home.

A landlord can apply to the court for an order that he be allowed to exercise a right to enter included in the terms of the tenancy, but he cannot apply for a right because the court has no power to grant such a right.

[Sheena McQ]

A landlord cannot enter a property without the tenant’s consent. If the tenant refuses to allow access then the landlord has recourse through the proper channels to apply for a right to enter. It’s as simple as that.