Letting Agent - Unaccompanied Entry

sirhan_sirhan

Hi,

Would appreciate views in respect of a sticking point on my new contract.

Agent wants the right to be able to use a key to enter the property, unaccompanied if necessary, in order to conduct their quarterly inspections.

We are adamant that this is unacceptable. My wife is home most of the time, and hence we can see little issue with fitting in around the agent's availability.

This house is going to be our home, and the last thing that we want is a stranger letting themselves in and looking around. We have never come across this on other contracts, although we do accept that this might be required in the case of emergency only.

This appears to be a significant sticking point for the agent, and seems to have the potential to break the deal (much to the dismay of the Landlord I would imagine).

I would hence appreciate any feedback, supporting either viewpoint on this. If anyone can cite law, guidelines or examples to back me up (or the agent for that matter), then this would be appreciated.


Thanks in advance.

Jomo

Sounds shocking to me and no way would I allow it. I would insist on them giving me minimum 24 hours notice in any event!

aitch-aitch

I actually think JoMo may have hit on what could be a compromise on this point.

why don't you add a bit onto the clause they are asking for which states "providing 48 hours notice has been given in writing specifying the date and time of visit". Then at least you will know when they are coming and they are stil able to gain access even if you are out.

mchale

Stick to your guns, agent has no right to enter you house without giving you 24hrs notice, unless its a emergency, once your in you could always change lock on front door.

sirhan_sirhan

Many thanks for the prompt responses.

To be fair to the agent, they have offered to give notice, 7 days written. However, this is not much good if we happen to be on holiday, or if the time offered is inconvenient for some reason (although, given my wife's availability, I don't see that any time would be inconvenient, so long as we are not away).

The house is perfect in every way but, if it comes to it, we would rather stay put or look elsewhere as opposed to have a home that could be subject to what we see as trespass.

Thanks too for the suggestion of changing the locks, but I don't think that would get the lease off on the right footing.


Thanks again, any more thoughts would be most welcome.

franklee

A tenant has the right to "quiet enjoyment" of the property, I suggest you google that. This means that the tenant is in control of who enters and when. Often agents put in terms that cannot be enforced should the tenant breach the contract.

I'd suggest the term you want is that the landlord or agent can enter for inspection by agreed appointment only, with a minimum of 48 hours written notice. It is perfectly reasonable that you should be able to refuse inconvenient appointments so long as you are being reasonable about arranging an alternative one. it is also reasonable that you should be present, I would not allow entry unless I was there but like you can arrange to be in during the day.

Do let the landlord know the agent is being awkward. Even if you get the contract changed I'd not trust the agent to remember and adhere to it, they will probably just go on doing what they normally do. It does not bode well for them looking after you very well.

I have passed up good properties as I didn't like the agent as I didn't want the aggro.

franklee

As I said do google "quiet enjoyment". I don't have time to do it now but here is one example to kick you off:

http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/legal_glossary/q/quiet_enjoyment.html

G_M

Let them put whatever they like in the contract. Don't let it become an issue which stops you signing the agreement.

Once you have a tenancy, they have NO right of entry without your agreement WHATever is written in the contract. A letting agent should know that.

If they DO come in, change the locks, write and tell them you've done so because they have breached your rights to 'quiet enjoyment' and you cannot trust them not to do it again. Tell them you will re-instate the original locks at the end of the contract

sirhan_sirhan

Flanklee and G_M - many thanks for your responses.

Good point re 'quiet enjoyment'; I have spent a bit of time googling this, and did in fact come up with the link that you subsequently directed me towards..

I found a fairly good summary of the balance between quiet enjoyment and right of access, roughly halway down this discussion (look for the post by Damocles):

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t102682.html

Section 11 (6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says:

In a lease in which the lessor�s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied 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.

Three observations may be made:

1. This is a statutory provision. It cannot be the case that the right is not exercisable in any circumstances as that would be a nonsense. Statute does not give rights that cannot be exercised.

2. If taken literally, i.e. that once notice is given the landlord may enter, the right would still have to be exercsied reasonably.

3. The right only extends to making inspections to view the condition of the property. Does mean ther is no right to enter to carry out repairs? I do not think so. If a person has an obligation there has to be an implication that, acting reasonably, he can do what he needs to do to carry out that obligation. Accordingly, ancillary rights of entry must go with an obligation to repair.

But, strictly, the statute does not give the landlord any rights as such, it only implies a covenant by the tenant that the landlord may have access for the purpose stated. That means the obligation can be treated as if it were an obligation written into the tenancy agreement. As suggested above, it would be nonsense for statute to imply an obligation that cannot be enforced. There are cases where statute specifically negates provisions in tenancy agreements, but a right of entry is not one of them. This obviously has to be the case as any such provision would negate section 11(6).

So we have the position where a tenancy agreement will either contain an express provision allowing access or one implied by statute. To what extent and in what circumstances can the tenant's obligation be enforced? Well, the obligation comes into conflict with the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment. How is the conflict to be resolved? On the one hand the tenant has the right to have his occupation undisturbed, but on the other the landlord may need to get into the property for very good reasons. The property is the tenant's home, but the landlord has the right to take steps necessary to preserve the value of his property - regular, if infrequent, inspections are part of good estate management and are to be encouraged in the interest of both landlord and tenant.

It is suggested by others above that access can only be with the tenant's consent. I think that is correct, but only up to a point. There has to come a time where the landlord can insist on access; if he cannot, then (and I apologise for labouring the point) it would mean that statute has afforded him something he cannot ultimately fall back on. We can safely say that a landlord would be entitled to enter if he obtained a court order and I can see no reason for a court to refuse to grant an order if the landlord's reasons for wanting access are reasonable. But applying to the court takes time and money. Can a landlord faced with an intransigent tenant who has refused repeated requests for access for a reasonable purpose allowed by the terms of the tenancy indulge in a little self help? I would tentatively, and I emphasise tentatively, say that he can, so long as he does so reasonably and causing the minimum of disturbance.

It would seem therefore as if the law is on my side, so long as I am being reasonable regarding agreeing to appointments.

Very good suggestion re the locks G_M, I feel that this is a good way forward. Still very reluctant though to put my name to an agreement that I don't fully agree with. Will ponder on it a little, and see what Mrs Sirhan Sirhan thinks.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to advise.

barnaby-bear

G_M wrote: »

Let them put whatever they like in the contract. Don't let it become an issue which stops you signing the agreement.

Once you have a tenancy, they have NO right of entry without your agreement WHATever is written in the contract. A letting agent should know that.

If they DO come in, change the locks, write and tell them you've done so because they have breached your rights to 'quiet enjoyment' and you cannot trust them not to do it again. Tell them you will re-instate the original locks at the end of the contract

http://www.all-about-the-home.co.uk/yale-saa5010-pir-shed-alarm-with-keypad-saa-5010---free-delivery-601-p.asp

This will
a) alert you if they sneak in
b) remind them - they shouldn't be there

G_M

barnaby-bear wrote: »

http://www.all-about-the-home.co.uk/yale-saa5010-pir-shed-alarm-with-keypad-saa-5010---free-delivery-601-p.asp

This will
a) alert you if they sneak in
b) remind them - they shouldn't be there

Like it! Put one in each room and drive them mad as they walk around the house!
(hang on - I'm an ex-LL. Which side am I on? Damn I was a friendly LL!!)