should we get rid of our tenants in order tosell quick?

Debt_Free_Chick

franklee wrote: »

Of course a tenant can unreasonably withhold their consent to the LL's request for access. Just like a tenant can unreasonably refuse to pay rent. Or unreasonably refuse to be quiet after 11pm. Or unreasonably do anything else that a tenant can so easily and unreasonably do. Anyone thinking different would be mad to be a landlord as they have no concept of the risks they are taking in letting out a property.

The question is if the tenant refuses access and that is in breach if the tenancy agreement then what would a landlord be advised to do about it! Simply repeating oh dear the nasty tenant has breached the tenancy agreement does not answer this issue.

Agree with all of this. Of course tenants can act unreasonably .... but not without the risk of consequences - I guess that is the point I tried, rather lamely, to make.

Just like a landlord should not nick the missing rent money from the tenant's wallet, he should not seek redress from a refusal for viewing by just going in anyway, or even by changing the locks as some misguided fools here advocate. The reason being that if he does he stands to lose far more than the tenant does.

Completely agree - no-one should take the law into their own hands. I think I'm trying to say that any tenant who acts unreasonably should be aware that the LL can take action. Sure, it ought be through the Courts and yes, that can take some time. But telling tenants that they have a right to "quiet enjoyment" does not make unreasonable action right and/or lawful. All too often, the "quiet enjoyment" right (covenant, actually) is trotted out as if it denies the LL any rights of access .... and this is simply not the case.

From a pragmatic point of view, what does the tenant have to gain from being unreasonable? Given that the LL can evict them (or more rightly, gain repossession of the property) with the correct process, an unreasonable tenant potentially loses control of the situation and puts themselves at the mercy of the LL. Mercy is unlikely to be forthcoming if the tenant has behaved like a complete twi(a)t

Quiet enjoyment does not require the tenant to be present at the time of the offence. Just think how you would like complete strangers tramping through your home when you are not there, same applies to the tenant.

Although if the tenant were a home-owner, but selling, they would doubtless allow their EA to conduct viewings with "complete strangers", in their absence

Even if you are happy for viewings in your absence you cannot impose your own values on the tenant. At the end of the day whist it is the landlord's property it is also for the duration of the tenancy the tenant's home and that means handing control of the property over to the tenant. If the landlord does not wish to do this then he needn't let the property in the first place.

Yup - I am a tenant, however. I have not and have no intention of ever being a LL

But we can't have this both ways ..... it's not a case of "handing control" of the property over to the tenant. That won't wear when the tenant wants the LL to comply with their obligations in relation to any repairs and/or maintenance. This is a partnership, with both the LL and the tenant recognising that they each have duties, obligations and responsibilities. Far better to work WITH eachother rather than against other, surely? The objectives are the same - the tenant wants a property to live in and the LL wants a good tenant

If it goes to court then I suspect the landlord would be granted access but the fact is that takes some time to achieve by which time the issue will likely have gone away anyway as any notice period would be up and the tenant gone. Then the landlord would have an empty property and can do what he likes.

The tenant might well win the battle, I agree. But they might well have been forced out, rightfully, and if they move it won't be without inconvenience, stress and some costs.

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

So you don't think tenants should take their responsibilities seriously?

yup, but not if the landlords don't respect their rights!

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

yup, but not if the landlords don't respect their rights!

Which right would that be? The landlords right to act in accordance withe the terms of the tenancy agreement that the tenant agreed to - all terms being assumed fair as per the OFTs suggestions?

Or the right of the tenant to decide not to take their responsibilities under the TA properly?

A tenancy doesn't just give you rights - it also brings responsibilities. It's important you stick to the rules and don't break your tenancy agreement, and to get advice as soon as possible if you have problems.
Most tenants can be evicted (providing the correct procedure is followed) if they don't follow certain basic rules. These include:...


Giving your landlord access when necessary

Most tenancy agreements contain information about how and when your landlord can get access to the property, for example, if repairs are needed. You are entitled to be given reasonable notice of this....

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/renting_and_leasehold/rights_and_responsibilities/tenants_responsibilities

Landlords may need access to the accommodation to inspect it and do repairs but they must let you live in your home without unnecessary interference. If you are a tenant then your landlord can't come in whenever they feel like it, and should give proper notice and arrange a suitable time if they need to visit. The amount of notice they have to give might be set out in your agreement. If you have a licence, your right to restrict your landlord from coming in is more limited, so get advice before you do anything.

You can ask your landlord to stop entering your home without your permission. It may be classed as harassment if s/he persists.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/renting_and_leasehold/rights_and_responsibilities/landlords_responsibilities

PayDay

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Yup - I am a tenant, however. I have not and have no intention of ever being a LL

Really?? I had you down as a LL.

franklee

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

From a pragmatic point of view, what does the tenant have to gain from being unreasonable?

I do agree with a lot of what you say but the point is tenants are all individuals with different values. In my case for example I would gain not having people in my home when I am not preset and to achieve this I would if necessary refuse a viewing even if it has the 24 hours written notice. This is because in some cases, but not all, it may not be possible to be ready for a viewing or at home with just 24 hours notice.

Say the notification letter arrives at 9am giving notice of a viewing the next day at 9am. Say a tenant leaves home at 8am so only reads the letter at 6pm when when home from work. By then office hours are over so any reschedule could only be arranged once office hours start in the morning by which time it may be too late.

The better way to handle this for example is if the agent phones up the tenant and requests a viewing for the day after tomorrow and agrees a suitable time. Then posts the letter.

In fact the obvious way is for the agent and tenant to discuss how to arrange the viewings at the start. Not to impose or assume it's OK to arrange a viewing even with notice as the tenant will be out as some of the earlier posters in the thread suggested.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Although if the tenant were a home-owner, but selling, they would doubtless allow their EA to conduct viewings with "complete strangers", in their absence

My stance was the same as a seller - I was present for all viewings and would not allow otherwise. The agent was not given a key. That others are happy leaving it to the agent is their choice but as I said we are all different. Did you notice this thread?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1025815

Several tenants there wish to be present also. My being present is not negotiable and I would take whatever consequences that brings.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

The tenant might well win the battle, I agree. But they might well have been forced out, rightfully, and if they move it won't be without inconvenience, stress and some costs.

As for leaving, well that would be on the cards anyway or else why would viewers be needed?

franklee

Premier wrote: »

I believe you must be mistaking me for someone else. I've never suggested the LL does anything criminal. I answered a question over what could a LL do if the tenant didn't let the LL or his agent in. The answer I gave was in line with the clause I mentioned was commonly found in most TA's. The locksmith would be employed to gain legal entry where a tenant such as you had changed the locks. In regards to the other allegations you make, I suggest you are mistaken by either what I wrote or by who posted what.

Really, thank you for clearing that up. I was a bit puzzled back there by the following two points:

In reply to tbs624's and if that was the case, what sanction would the LL be able to use when the tenant decided that they didn't want to comply? you wrote:

Premier wrote: »

Sanctions available is that the LL/EA just lets themself in with the prospective purchasers

In reply to my I would have no hesitation in changing the locks if faced with a landlord/EA with your attitude. you wrote:

Premier wrote: »

... and I'd have no hesitation in employing a locksmith to gain rightful entry.

Glad to hear that you would only do all this having gone through the courts in the proper manner cos it didn't seem like that on first reading.

Debt_Free_Chick

franklee wrote: »

I do agree with a lot of what you say but the point is tenants are all individuals with different values. In my case for example I would gain not having people in my home when I am not preset and to achieve this I would if necessary refuse a viewing even if it has the 24 hours written notice. This is because in some cases, but not all, it may not be possible to be ready for a viewing or at home with just 24 hours notice.

Say the notification letter arrives at 9am giving notice of a viewing the next day at 9am. Say a tenant leaves home at 8am so only reads the letter at 6pm when when home from work. By then office hours are over so any reschedule could only be arranged once office hours start in the morning by which time it may be too late.

As a tenant, I would be p!$$ed off at this too I can (now) see exactly where you're coming from.

The better way to handle this for example is if the agent phones up the tenant and requests a viewing for the day after tomorrow and agrees a suitable time. Then posts the letter.

In fact the obvious way is for the agent and tenant to discuss how to arrange the viewings at the start. Not to impose or assume it's OK to arrange a viewing even with notice as the tenant will be out as some of the earlier posters in the thread suggested.

I must have been lucky as a tenant. I am about to vacate my current property - which has been sold (sigh) - and I have to say that both the LL and her EAs have been most considerate - to us - about viewings. Thankfully, it sold within three weeks so we didn't have too much to endure. The biggest problem for me was keeping the house tidy as I tend towards "sluttiness" rather than "Hyacinth Bucket-ness"

Yes - individual preferences/values will vary but - this is not aimed particularly at you - we need to be careful when posting (or reading) as others might take our preferences as an authoritative definition of "the law". It's all too easy to do in this kind of environment and I've doubtless been guilty of it myself

Debt_Free_Chick

PayDay wrote: »

Really?? I had you down as a LL.

I'll take that as a compliment

Premier_2

franklee wrote: »

Really, thank you for clearing that up. I was a bit puzzled back there by the following two points:

In reply to tbs624's and if that was the case, what sanction would the LL be able to use when the tenant decided that they didn't want to comply? you wrote:



In reply to my I would have no hesitation in changing the locks if faced with a landlord/EA with your attitude. you wrote:



Glad to hear that you would only do all this having gone through the courts in the proper manner cos it didn't seem like that on first reading.

Context

No need to apply to any court for permission to do any of these things given in response to the questions posed at the time

Where did it say anything about entering against the tenants express wishes?
Where did I say I would change locks? - I think that was a ploy suggested by others that tenants try (not recommended, imho)
Where have I suggested doing anything that would breach the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of the property?

Oh well, I'm glad you now understand & agree that I wouldn't do anything illegal.

franklee

Premier wrote: »

Context

No need to apply to any court for permission to do any of these things given in response to the questions posed at the time

Where did it say anything about entering against the tenants express wishes?
Where did I say I would change locks? - I think that was a ploy suggested by others that tenants try (not recommended, imho)
Where have I suggested doing anything that would breach the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of the property?

Oh well, I'm glad you now understand & agree that I wouldn't do anything illegal.

Sorry but I really can't understand what point you are trying to make anymore.

If the AST says access is to be allowed with 24 hours written notice yet later on when it comes to a viewing the tenant expressly says no in breach of the tenancy agreement then if the landlord goes in anyway that is against the tenant's express wishes.

So what legal recourse do you think the landlord has in response to that express NO? If you could state exactly what steps you as landlord would take in the above situation, making clear if court is involved or not, then perhaps I will understand what your view is.

Likewise if the tenant then goes on to change the locks what then what legal recourse do you think the landlord has? Again if you could state exactly what steps you as landlord would take again making clear if court is involved or not.