Landlord let himself in.....

Castleman

And 16 years old is hardly a baby. Old enough to work, get married, have children, serve in the army etc etc but not old enough to let your landlord in?!!

Castleman

Saver-Rob wrote: »

The fact this guy didnt turn away immediately when he saw just your 16 year old daughter indoors rings alarm bells. He either fails to see its inappropriate or there is something more sinister behind it all.

For a grown man not to want to avoid the situation just to avoid the possibility of it being deemed as inappropriate makes me wonder.

It makes me wonder that all of these people's first reaction is about sinister motives rather than a helpful landlord...

sooz

frugallass wrote: »

He phoned and spoke to my 16 year old daughter and arranged to come yesterday at 4pm - I was a bit miffed that 1) he had arranged it with her and 2) had given less than 24 hours notice but it needed doing and she said she would be home at 4pm anyway.

He came yesterday and started work on the hob but had to leave it because he needed a part and said he would be back today (I presumed he meant he would come round when she got home from school at 4pm).

Got home at 7pm, the hob hasn't been touched but a fluorescent (?) light under the wall unit has been fixed

Some of the reponses to this are completely OTT.

Your LL called you & spoke to your daughter, & arranged a time to come & fix something. He didn't have a part & said he would be back the following day - & you agreed. You did not agree a time.

You should be given 24 hours notice in writing. You didn't have to agree to anything over the phone. As for arranging a time with your daughter, if you didn't want her to agree to it, or her to be home with him, then you should speak to HER about not agreeing appointments with him, instead to say that she'll take a message & ask you.

Then your neighbours say he's been in & out of the flat 3 times during the day that you agreed he could come. Why is this considered so unusual? He most probably started to fix the hob, & then realised he needed a different took, another part etc. As for the light, technically it's your responsibility to replace a broken bulb. However, most likely he started to look at the hob, realised that the bulb had blown & it was dark, & went out & replaced it before continuing. I don't see anything unusual in that, except that if it was me (& I don't fix gas, but perhaps if I'd been waiting in for the plumber etc) I would leave a note saying what had been fixed, what couldn't be fixed that day & for what reason, & what would happen next.

Personally I'd be more concerned as to whether he has CORGI registration & is allowed to fix gas appliances.

If you are not happy about him coming in to fix something when you are out, then don't agree to it. Your note sounds fine.

Ignore the scare mongerers who think that there is something much more sinister afoot, & that he plans to first film you all, then sell the footage, before selling you all into slavery.

beaujolais-nouveau

sooz wrote: »

Some of the reponses to this are completely OTT. ... Ignore the scare mongerers who think that there is something much more sinister afoot, & that he plans to first film you all

Actually, more than one man has been prosecuted and imprisoned for filming the family au pair in her bedroom or in the loo.

In the OP's position, I would check on the CORGI web site to see if the LL is registered with CORGI, and I would change the lock (the OP should read up on her statutory rights). Not in a million years would I allow the LL into the flat when only the young daughter was at home.

Castleman

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Actually, more than one man has been prosecuted and imprisoned for filming the family au pair in her bedroom or in the loo.

Yes and more than one child has been abducted. However, if you left your child on your front doorstep, it would take (on average) 200,000 years before it happened.

Lets look at the likely options first...the landlord is overly keen to be helpful and doesn't realise the implications of his actions. If he's retired and anything like my grandfather (retired engineer) he's still living as life was in the 50's - which was much less focus on low risk fears and doesn't understand how his actions might appear to others.

dawsinho

Thank god! some people with common sense have arrived.

poppysarah

Castleman wrote: »

Yes and more than one child has been abducted. However, if you left your child on your front doorstep, it would take (on average) 200,000 years before it happened..

Perhaps in any other line of work the landlord would be expected to be CRB checked. Perhaps all landlords should.

And if you left your child on the doorstep then all sorts of bad stuff could happen which is why a responsible parent does their very best for their child and doesn't put them in situations where issues could arrise.

barnaby-bear

Castleman wrote: »

Yes and more than one child has been abducted. However, if you left your child on your front doorstep, it would take (on average) 200,000 years before it happened.

Lets look at the likely options first...the landlord is overly keen to be helpful and doesn't realise the implications of his actions. If he's retired and anything like my grandfather (retired engineer) he's still living as life was in the 50's - which was much less focus on low risk fears and doesn't understand how his actions might appear to others.

I'd just be peeved at the general disregard for the property as their home. Something older generations are more aware of. It's just odd for a LL to feel comfortable popping in and out.

sooz

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Actually, more than one man has been prosecuted and imprisoned for filming the family au pair in her bedroom or in the loo.

If the LL happens to be the same man who was imprisoned for this, then why would anyone want to live below him, & allow him access to their home, unaccompanied.

If, as you suggest, another random man, or men, have been imprisoned for filming their au pair, what on earth does this have to do with the OP?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that all men are potential perverts & criminals, & they should all be locked up?

sooz

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I'd just be peeved at the general disregard for the property as their home. Something older generations are more aware of. It's just odd for a LL to feel comfortable popping in and out.

But the OP AGREED to the LL returning the following day. They did not agree a time.

He was not, as I understand it, popping in & out just for the sake of it. He was there, as agreed with the tenant, to fix something.