Letting Agent - Unaccompanied Entry

Enfieldian

Geenie wrote: »

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.

Eh? Who rattled your cage Geenie?

I left agency to move on to bigger and better things, also my clients tended to be the over reactive, ill informed sort, a bit like you.

I am still a LL AND a Tenant, I didn't want to commute in from Cambridge every day. Your stupid "appalled" assumption is therefore pretty wide of the mark.

I fail to see how one piece of advice on a forum is "encourage....... breaking the rules at every opportunity"

As for changing the locks, that is reasonable and sensible advice for the reasons I have clearly stated in the above post. The LL, or in this case, the Agent does not NEED a set of keys to the property. Access can be arranged via the rent paying tenant. If a LL complains then it begs the question as to why they were trying to gain access without notice in the first place. When faced with the old possible "gas leak" or "flood" excuses then the cost of calling out a locksmith can be added to the other bills.

It would also be interesting for a tenant trying to claim on their contents insurance if a previous tenant had let themselves in with a set of keys and helped themselves......

The issue of registering a deposit is a totally different one and nothing to do with the original post, as is your irrelevant and hysterical rambling. Are you upset that you can't just hold on to a tenant's deposit at the end of a tenancy any more, like the small minded amateurish LL that you obviously are.

Have you got a void at the moment or something? Take a chill pill and drop your price, alternatively you may just be a cr*p LL that nobody wants to rent from.....

:rolleyes:

sirhan_sirhan

Just a quick line to advise that the additional Tenant Obligation has been approved by all, and that the unaccompanied entry clause is to be deleted.

The LA spent far too long in this instance in becoming entrenched regarding a clause that he wanted. What he should have done, was to stand back, identify what it actually was that he wanted to achieve, and then work out an alternative way to achieve that objective. This new clause gives him what he wants, and dispenses with a clause that horrified me.

I understand some of the advice regarding the fact that I don't have to include this clause, but at times it pays to be pragmatic. Inspection dates have been advised 12 months in advance, none of them clash with birthdays or school holidays etc, and Mrs. Oswald doesn't work. Hence I have no doubt that we will be able to comply with inspection dates.

Thanks again for all of the excellent advice.

franklee

Thanks for the update, glad to hear it all worked out.

I note some people have mentioned changing the barrel of the locks retaining the originals to put back at the end of the tenancy. I would do this if the property has been let before as you do not know if any of the previous occupants or estate agents marketing the property will try to gain entry.

I have read of cases of vandalism after the old tenant checked out. Also cases were an EA marketing the property for sale walked in on a tenant not realising the property was let.

If you are often going to be in then I see no harm in locks changed. This keys needed in an emergency is rubbish as what are the chances of the agent/landlord being first on the scene in a genuine emergency, the agent is only open during office hours anyway. If the house is at risk of being destroyed, or if lives are at risk the emergency services aren't going to hang around till office hours the next day waiting for keys from the agent, they will break in

tbs624

sirhan_sirhan wrote: »

Just a quick line to advise that the additional Tenant Obligation has been approved by all, and that the unaccompanied entry clause is to be deleted.

The LA spent far too long in this instance in becoming entrenched regarding a clause that he wanted. What he should have done, was to stand back, identify what it actually was that he wanted to achieve, and then work out an alternative way to achieve that objective. This new clause gives him what he wants, and dispenses with a clause that horrified me.

Well done for persisting. The fact is that, currently, absolutely anyone can set themselves up in business as an LA - no relevant experience , no relevant qualifications, no training and no common sense. There seems to a fair number of them with the type of attitude that you have unfortunately encountered, and they should be challenged when their understanding of the law is poor. Letting Agencies provide jobs for the otherwise unemployable and regulation cannot come soon enough IMO.

sirhan_sirhan wrote: »

...Inspection dates have been advised 12 months in advance, none of them clash with birthdays or school holidays etc, and Mrs. Oswald doesn't work. ...

Ahem , you may like to add the words "outside the home/ in paid employment" ..it helps prevent your dinner ending up in the dog's bowl

tbs624

Geenie wrote: »

..... 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:

Changing the lock barrel is the usual advice given by Shelter et al to any T who is concerned that *anyone* will be letting themselves in to the property for which they are paying rent and of which they have been granted exclusive occupation. A LL who uses his/her keys to enter a tenanted property without the agreement of the T or a court order is a very foolish LL indeed.

Securing the deposit and maintaining the property are different matters as they are *statutory* obligations for the LL.