Landlord wants to 'pop in'

TDS_2

50plusabit wrote: »

...change the locks, its not expensive, if he moans about it, you know he has tried to gain entry.

Tempting, but there seems to be a lot of people who disagree with this advice. Does this not break the rules of the tenancy agreement? Shaky ground.

Are there ANY circumstances when the LL can gain access to a property w/o the T's consent, with or w/o 24hrs written notice?

poppysarah

TDS wrote: »

Tempting, but there seems to be a lot of people who disagree with this advice. Does this not break the rules of the tenancy agreement? Shaky ground.

Are there ANY circumstances when the LL can gain access to a property w/o the T's consent, with or w/o 24hrs written notice?

Your landlord will only know if he tries his key. Which he isn't allowed to do.

littlemissmoney

TDS wrote: »

Are there ANY circumstances when the LL can gain access to a property w/o the T's consent, with or w/o 24hrs written notice?

A proper emergency. Like water pouring through the ceiling of the flat below. i.e. any situation where if the LL didn't have a key then the door would have to be kicked in. Even then I would say it's only if the stop tap is inside. Gas leak maybe? Collecting stuff he has left in the house is not an emergency.

Change the locks. If he finds out then you did the right thing.

System

franklee wrote: »

I've read a lot of rubbish on this forum but believing something just because it was told you by an Estate Agent has to be one of the funniest. (I think you will find that EA's are quite capable of either being incompetent or outright liars when it suits). What next, I expect you believe everything they write in property ads too?

A tenant has the right to refuse entry if they wish. Although I'd recommend agreeing a mutually convenient appointment for a reasonable number of inspections and repairs not for the landlord popping in to collect things :rolleyes:

It was a term to agree to before we moved in. Like I said, I think it was because we're students. We could have disagreed and gone somewhere else, but to be honest I think it's a good idea.

I don't see what the fuss is about though, the LL is paying a one-off 2 minute visit to collect a few items and then you may never see him again. :rolleyes:

hamblettamaud

candyflossing wrote: »

It was a term to agree to before we moved in. Like I said, I think it was because we're students. We could have disagreed and gone somewhere else, but to be honest I think it's a good idea.

I don't see what the fuss is about though, the LL is paying a one-off 2 minute visit to collect a few items and then you may never see him again. :rolleyes:

i disagree entirely. if the landlord wants to collect his stuff he should do it at a time convenient to both parties. i absolutely would not want someone in my house/flat/apartment/dog kennel when i am not there. and when he is there, i would make sure he takes away everything that belongs to him and is not on the inventory. then he will have no excuse to repeat his demands. as the OP has already stated, she does not entirely trust this LL.

TDS_2

candyflossing wrote: »

I don't see what the fuss is about though, the LL is paying a one-off 2 minute visit to collect a few items and then you may never see him again. :rolleyes:

Maybe, maybe not. As I've said above, we've had previous LLs and LAs that I wouldn't think twice about giving full access to. Our current LL is different - he does seem to think that he can swan in whenever he wants, and I don't trust him. He lived in the flat before we moved in, and isn't a professional landlord (this is his only flat AFAIK) - this, I think, is the main issue here.

sooz

TDS wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. As I've said above, we've had previous LLs and LAs that I wouldn't think twice about giving full access to. Our current LL is different - he does seem to think that he can swan in whenever he wants, and I don't trust him. He lived in the flat before we moved in, and isn't a professional landlord (this is his only flat AFAIK) - this, I think, is the main issue here.

if he used to live there, can you leave his stuff with one of his old neighbours?

wannabe_sybil

candyflossing wrote: »

I don't see what the fuss is about though, the LL is paying a one-off 2 minute visit to collect a few items and then you may never see him again. :rolleyes:

There are landlords about who are not above having a sniff of your knicker drawer if you are not present.

If you are okay with that, fine, but not everyone else is.

How about checking through your private post? How about checking your bedside drawers? How about rummaging through the kitchen cupboards?

You wouldn't know if that had happened or not because you were not present.

tbs624

TDS wrote: »

Seems to be a little confusion.

First off, we've not refused access, simply asked LL to come outside working hours. Second, we have no problem with him storing a few personal items nor picking those items up; we simply ask that he comes round at a time that we are in.

No confusion over what *you* were saying as the OP My responses were to some of the other posters' general "refuse access" chorus, and B-Bear's wholly incorrect assertion that there is no implied covenant allowing the LL access for repairs/viewing of the property's condition at reasonable times after appropriate notice. The point is that "reasonable" is when both parties agree that the time/date is reasonable - not a unilateral decision. This clearly doesn't cover calling to collect stuff but the LL will probaly seek to dress it as an "inspection", as you mention.

For your specific situation negotiation is the way forward, and your LL should , as you say, quite simply arrange to come when its convenient for you - he's fortunate that you agreed to the stuff being stored there.

tbs624

franklee wrote: »

.Well obviously you overlooked the I'd recommend agreeing a mutually convenient appointment for a reasonable number of inspections and repairs in my post even though you quoted it ..

That's an assumption on your part Franklee - I deliberately left in your afterthought sentence but then expanded on why a T may want to consider not refusing access.

franklee wrote: »

...You also overlooked the bit I disagreed with candyflossing on which I'd put in bold in the quote. The tenant does NOT have to let the landlord in with 24 hour notice if that date is inconvenient the tenant is perfectly within their rights to refuse that date. If they do so and arrange another mutually convenient date then they are fine. A 24 hour notice is not a passport in so the landlord does not have a right to visit after giving that notice, the tenant can refuse...

Assumptions again , franklee: if you quote other posters and you alter any part of their post by highlighting, abridging etc you should indicate that you have done so - your post did not indicate that the emboldening was yours. I'll take your post as nothing more than a bit of wee small hours p*ssiness, because as I said in post 48: "see also my post above" :

tbs624 wrote: »

This is separate to, but not negated by, the implied covenant from the LL that the T shall have quiet enjoyment of the property - as I said before, perfectly reasonable for any visit to be agreed for a mutually convenient time...

The T can certainly refuse but why be deliberately difficult when something like this can be dealt with by negotiation.