Letting Agent - Unaccompanied Entry

franklee

But that depends on having a half decent landlord who will take an interest. In my experience many landlords who use an agent to fully manage do that because they don't want to take an interest e.g. too busy, live abroad or are not local, don't want to learn all the details etc..

After all why pay for a dog and bark yourself?

OTOH a good agent can protect the tenant from an ignorant landlord.

So the thing is to get either a good agent who fully manages or a good landlord who manages him/her self IMO.

thecableguy12

interesting read, i rent and have a quarterly inspection they did mention they could let themselves in whilst i was at work but i declined plus they dont do saturdays etc, my wife had to take time off work for the inspection which there where no problems, i just dont like the idea that people i dont know have access to my home i rent, they could access personal data ie bank statments credit card bills computers and some sensative information my wife keeps for her work as she works from home from time to time in education. im thinking of changing the locks, i just wanna buy my own home, not much chance of that at the moment!!:rolleyes::beer:

nrsql

sirhan_sirhan wrote: »

He responded "it isn't your home, you are only renting it!".

At another point he asked "what do you do for a living? What gives you the right to dictate what can and can't go into my contracts?"

He should know that although you are renting it is also your home.
You are involved in the contract so have as much right as him as to its contents.

I think you know this agent probably doesn't know his job and is going to cause you a lot of problems (would you trust his word?}. I would walk away now.

From your description I would expect a more professional agent - sounds more like a debt collector.

jadex

sirhan_sirhan wrote: »

At another point he asked "what do you do for a living? What gives you the right to dictate what can and can't go into my contracts?"

I'd say to him it is NOT his contract. It is the contract between you and LL.
He is only a middleman obliged to put in contract what you and LL agree.
It is also NOT his money involved in renting NOT his house.

sirhan_sirhan

Thanks again for all of the time and trouble taken to reply.

Still have not fully calmed down from my conversation with the LA last night. I just can't believe how unprofessional he was, or how fragile a grip he had on the legal position.

He seemed to have no comprehension whatsoever of what quiet enjoyment actually meant; and when I pointed out that our common law right was for quiet enjoyment, regardless of what the contract might say, he attempted to argue that the terms of the contract would over-ride common law!

I dropped a mail to the Landlord this morning, advising of the conversation that took place, and the entrenched position that the agent was adopting. I expressed my hope that the agent would come back with a more conciliatory and professional attitude today, and that things would hopefully progress from there. I promised to call them this evening if this was not the case.

The best result for me would be for the Landlord to appoint a new agent, and that we could proceed with the contract that has been drawn up, minus the contentious unaccompanied access clause. I have not suggested this to them as yet, but might do so later. I don't want to take up too much of their time though, as they are in the final stages of leaving the country, and thus have alot to deal with as things currently stand. I also don't want to get myself marked as a troublemaker from the off.

We are due to move in at the end of next week, so I am confident that one way forward or another will be found. If we have to deal with the current agent then I am sure that we will cope with that; dealings will only have to be minimal, and I think that we all know where we stand now that I have stood up to his muscle flexing.

Other pointers that have been given to me, and possibly worth repeating here are:

- Contents insurance. Quite possible that my cover could be invalidated by this unaccompanied entry.
- Human Rights Act 1988 Article 8:Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Thanks again for all of the kind assistance. I will keep you posted.

theartfullodger

Sirhan - you state ...

Unfortuantely the house is unique (6 beds, 4 acres, pool etc, in a perfect location).

This may be irrelevant & if so sorry but, If the rent is over £25,000pa it CANNOT be an Assured Shorthold Tenancy & you are in a different set of rules, albeit "Exclusive Access" still applies.

For example in the over £25k arena eviction is much easier (No, disnae make sense to me either).

If you can get 6 beds, 4 acres pool etc for less - well, good on 'yer!!!

Cheers!

Lodger

sirhan_sirhan

theartfullodger wrote: »

Sirhan - you state ...

This may be irrelevant & if so sorry but, If the rent is over £25,000pa it CANNOT be an Assured Shorthold Tenancy & you are in a different set of rules, albeit "Exclusive Access" still applies.

For example in the over £25k arena eviction is much easier (No, disnae make sense to me either).

If you can get 6 beds, 4 acres pool etc for less - well, good on 'yer!!!

Cheers!

Lodger

Hi Lodger,

Amazingly enough, it is close to £20k pa. London commuter belt, around 2 miles from a mainland station. Bonkers, isn't it?

Thanks for the advice though.

sirhan_sirhan

Just spoken to the LL on the 'phone, and he understands where we are coming from. He acknowledged that he wouldn't like strangers in his home either.

The agent has however got him concerned that perhaps the inspections might not take place without this provision, and thus that there will be no way of checking up on the well being of his investment.

I have suggested that maybe we incorporate on obligation into the contract, that the Tenant is to permit quarterly inspections at times pre-agreed with the LA. Thus, in the event that we were not there at the agreed time, we would be in breeach of contract. The LL would then have the option of terminating the contract, or for getting recompense from us in respect of the additional costs of arranging a further inspection.

LL has no legal expertise, but he thought that this was a reasonable way forward.

Does this seem reasonable, or are there any flaws in this thinking? Wording of the clause should be fairly straightforward, perhaps something along the lines of:

To make the property available for inspections on a quarterly basis, at pre-agreed times and dates, by the landlord or their appointed agent, and to be present at aforesaid inspections.

Any thoughts/advice would be gratefully appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Enfieldian

sirhan_sirhan wrote: »

Just spoken to the LL on the 'phone, and he understands where we are coming from. He acknowledged that he wouldn't like strangers in his home either.

The agent has however got him concerned that perhaps the inspections might not take place without this provision, and thus that there will be no way of checking up on the well being of his investment.

I have suggested that maybe we incorporate on obligation into the contract, that the Tenant is to permit quarterly inspections at times pre-agreed with the LA. Thus, in the event that we were not there at the agreed time, we would be in breeach of contract. The LL would then have the option of terminating the contract, or for getting recompense from us in respect of the additional costs of arranging a further inspection.

LL has no legal expertise, but he thought that this was a reasonable way forward.

Does this seem reasonable, or are there any flaws in this thinking? Wording of the clause should be fairly straightforward, perhaps something along the lines of:

To make the property available for inspections on a quarterly basis, at pre-agreed times and dates, by the landlord or their appointed agent, and to be present at aforesaid inspections.

Any thoughts/advice would be gratefully appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

That sounds very reasonable, as said before, once you are in you hold the cards.

With regards to lock changing, I would do that anyway, you don't know how many copies are in circulation (other agents, previous tenants, etc)

I am speaking as an ex-agent, a landlord and a tenant if that helps...!

Geenie

Enfieldian wrote: »

With regards to lock changing, I would do that anyway, you don't know how many copies are in circulation (other agents, previous tenants, etc)

I am speaking as an ex-agent, a landlord and a tenant if that helps...!

I find your post appalling, and probably you were cr*p at all three, hence why you ended up as the later. No good at the first two for sure going by your advice. You are implying that it is OK to break an agreement that may include NOT changing the locks. So is it OK for the LL not to secure the deposit, or maintain the property as also in the agreement?:rolleyes:


It is posts like yours that do a disservice to everything to do with renting. There are those of us trying to get it regulated and fair for all, and those like you who encourage, breaking the rules at every opportunity. The British envy and anger is really getting embarrassing now.