Tenant living in a mess!

DVardysShadow

Fire_Fox wrote: »

As TBS624 said:
"You have no right to call unannounced at the property, and knock on the door, expecting to be let in . You should have made a mutually convenient appointment if you wanted her to sign papers."

Either use Royal Mail or request an appointment.

Unless the right is withdrawn, there is a general implied right of access to knock at the door. The right which the Landlord does not have is a right to be let past the door. I would have thought.

Fire_Fox

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Unless the right is withdrawn, there is a general implied right of access to knock at the door. The right which the Landlord does not have is a right to be let past the door. I would have thought.

The tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment and, if the unexpected visits are repeated, could claim harrassment. There is absolutely no need for a landlord to turn up at the front door except in an emergency, it's obvious the tenant would feel pressurised to allow access.

olly300

It's a case of the landlord using their common sense.

You can knock at the door unannounced but you should stated immediately that you do not want to come in and make an appropriate excuse.

I had 3 landlords who if they knocked on the door to collect rent cheques would either state immediately they did not want to come in with various excuses, or would refuse to enter when invited in. It never bothered me if they came in or not.

Oh and if you think the place is dirty or damaged you need to make an appointment to do an inspection for maintenance issues, and bring it up during and after that inspection.

tbs624

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Unless the right is withdrawn, there is a general implied right of access to knock at the door. The right which the Landlord does not have is a right to be let past the door. I would have thought.

Hence why the full sentence ends with the words "expecting to be let in"........the highlighting excluding that part was not mine.

tbs624

olly300 wrote: »

It's a case of the landlord using their common sense.

You can knock at the door unannounced but you should stated immediately that you do not want to come in and make an appropriate excuse.

I had 3 landlords who if they knocked on the door to collect rent cheques would either state immediately they did not want to come in with various excuses, or would refuse to enter when invited in. It never bothered me if they came in or not.

If there was an agreed arrangement that rent cheques would be collected by the LL then you would be expecting him to call at roughly the same time each month - the point is that, as Firefox says, many Ts would believe that they had no option other than to let a LL in if they simply turn up on spec. and that quite simply is not the case.

blckbrd

tbs624 wrote: »

Couple of points:

(1) You have no right to call unannounced at the property, and knock on the door, expecting to be let in . You should have made a mutually convenient appointment if you wanted her to sign papers.

Unless there's some kind of security in place, anyone may call at any property with any expectation they might imagine. Such a person may make any demands but, at least, good manners would dictate requesting an appointment.

There is a misconception here that a LL may not approach a rented property without an appointment. This is not the intent of 'quiet enjoyment'. Nor are repeated or frequent visits prohibited - depends onthe circumstances. That a LL may not harrass a tenant is a given. Noone is entitled to harrass anyone.

Additionally, if there is a 'condition' clause in the agreement then a LL may dictate how a tenant lives.

OP - report her to environmental health if you have real concerns and get an expert view.

tbs624

blckbrd wrote: »

Additionally, if there is a 'condition' clause in the agreement then a LL may dictate how a tenant lives.

Please give examples of 'condition' clauses which you think may allow a LL to dictate to a T how they choose to live.

Colincbayley

tbs624 wrote: »

Please give examples of 'condition' clauses which you think may allow a LL to dictate to a T how they choose to live.

Such a clause may state that the tenant is to keep the property in a clean and tidy condition.
It could however be argued that this is an unfair term, and the tenant could then take the LL to the courts who would then decide if indeed it was unfair ( they probably would side with the tenant )

However two points with this. Such a clause in an AST would not be classed as unfair until such a time as a court of law decides it is and also if the term was negotiated with the tenant prior to signing the AST then it would be deemed as fair and agreed.

tbs624

Define "clean" and define "tidy" ?

Would you also include a term stating " shall keep the windows clean"?

LLs can, as we know, ask for their property to be returned in the same condition as when let, save for FW&T and they can expect the T to do nothing that would cause damage/and or the property to deteriorate.( I would include in that anything that caused vermin to proliferate)

The LL is however receiving rent in exchange for exclusive occupation by the T. I would happily challenge any LL who sought to enforce a tenancy agreement's perpetual " clean and tidy" clause just because the Ts lifestyle did not meet with their own personal standards, rather than because there was resultant property deterioration.

As you rightly say, a court of law decides whether or not a contract term *is* unfair but consideration of any specific guidelines from the OFT would form part of that decision making process. I'm not aware that many LLs/LAs sit down and actively negotiate the individual clauses of their tenancy agreements.

A good LL has an inventory in place, a deposit to cover damage and/or lack of cleanliness when the property is returned. For the duration of the tenancy it's surely a case of , to paraphrase the army, "I'm not your mother, I'm your bl*** ing LL"

In the OP's case he does in a later post refer to specific damage - that's a different matter to viewing a T's living style as " messy" , "not clean" or "untidy".

The way forward of course is for a regulatory pro-forma tenancy agreement to be imposed for all lettings across the country.

Colincbayley

tbs624 wrote: »

Define "clean" and define "tidy" ?

Would you also include a term stating " shall keep the windows clean"?

LLs can, as we know, ask for their property to be returned in the same condition as when let, save for FW&T and they can expect the T to do nothing that would cause damage/and or the property to deteriorate.( I would include in that anything that caused vermin to proliferate)

The LL is however receiving rent in exchange for exclusive occupation by the T. I would happily challenge any LL who sought to enforce a tenancy agreement's perpetual " clean and tidy" clause just because the Ts lifestyle did not meet with their own personal standards, rather than because there was resultant property deterioration.

As you rightly say, a court of law decides whether or not a contract term *is* unfair but consideration of any specific guidelines from the OFT would form part of that decision making process. I'm not aware that many LLs/LAs sit down and actively negotiate the individual clauses of their tenancy agreements.

A good LL has an inventory in place, a deposit to cover damage and/or lack of cleanliness when the property is returned. For the duration of the tenancy it's surely a case of , to paraphrase the army, "I'm not your mother, I'm your bl*** ing LL"

In the OP's case he does in a later post refer to specific damage - that's a different matter to viewing a T's living style as " messy" , "not clean" or "untidy".

The way forward of course is for a regulatory pro-forma tenancy agreement to be imposed for all lettings across the country.

I must agree, from my own personal point of view, tenants may live as they wish. I don't even do inspection vists, the tenants phone me if they have a maintenance issue.
However, the point being, a LL could ( and god knows why they want to ) add a term in the AST, stating that the tenant must do the washing up twice a day, using fairy liquid and have sparkling glasses. If they add this term, and advised the tenant ( not just hide it in the small print ) then the tenant would be bound by it.

Much better off to stay out of tenants lifestyles if you ask me.