landlord saying I cant ebay from flat?? help!

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Some eye-wateringly bad "advice" on here. The main points amongst the guff:

1. The question of whether a tenant is running a business from a rental property is a valid one with financial implications for the LL. The OP can inform them in writing that she is categorically not doing this. The onus would then be on the LL to prove this, which they can't because she isn't. The OP should not feel she can no longer use Ebay for personal small scale selling.

2. Changing locks is an argument that arises regularly on here. The crux of the issue is that the statutory right of the tenant to quiet enjoyment overrides any contractual clause banning lock changes. There are implications for the relationship between tenant and LL that need to be considered before doing this however. If the LA/LL act professionally, I don't think it should be necessary, but sadly this is a business that attracts idiots and amateurs (as evinced by this thread).

3. I would be extremely interested (and surprised) to see how many contracts there are that come with a quantifiable tidiness clause. Obviously tenant behaviour that encourages vermin, damages the property structure or causes a fire hazard (a phrase that's bandied about alot, but one which will have a clear H&S definition) is a breach of contract. Leaving clothes on the floor, not folding your socks neatly enough, not having picture frames precisely parallel to shelf edges etc is of absolutely no concern to anyone but the tenant.

4. Sadly, tenants that know their rights and report maintenance problems are often labelled "difficult" by the cowboys and morons that populate LA offices across the land. So yes, making complaints should always be coupled with the excpectation of being served a section 21. It sucks, but a good tenant will always find somewhere nice, and the rank amateur LLs should hopefully be stung by voids, rogue tenants and expensive repair bills for the properties they couldn't be bothered to maintain.

Mouseman

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

2. Changing locks is an argument that arises regularly on here. The crux of the issue is that the statutory right of the tenant to quiet enjoyment overrides any contractual clause banning lock changes. There are implications for the relationship between tenant and LL that need to be considered before doing this however. If the LA/LL act professionally, I don't think it should be necessary, but sadly this is a business that attracts idiots and amateurs (as evinced by this thread).

I asked this question on another thread but am still left wondering:

If you rent and you change the locks without telling the landlord - what happens in that odd case of emergency when they are entitled to enter the property (suspected gas/water leak?) and they can't? Sure, they break a window or door to gain entry but it's a big pain in the neck for all concerned. Who would be responsible for the damages caused?

Thanks

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Mouseman wrote: »

I asked this question on another thread but am still left wondering:

If you rent and you change the locks without telling the landlord - what happens in that odd case of emergency when they are entitled to enter the property (suspected gas/water leak?) and they can't? Sure, they break a window or door to gain entry but it's a big pain in the neck for all concerned. Who would be responsible for the damages caused?

Thanks

It is indeed a good question. I suspect that genuine cases of such emergencies are so rare not many have heard of them.

I personally prefer for my LA to have a key, as I certainly can't be bothered to take time off work to let in repairmen who may or may not turn up. However they always give the correct amount of notice and are professional about this.

clutton_2

""The question of whether a tenant is running a business from a rental property is a valid one with financial implications for the LL.""

what type of financial implications ?

franklee

Mouseman wrote: »

If you rent and you change the locks without telling the landlord - what happens in that odd case of emergency when they are entitled to enter the property (suspected gas/water leak?) and they can't? Sure, they break a window or door to gain entry but it's a big pain in the neck for all concerned. Who would be responsible for the damages caused.

If there was a genuine emergency like a gas leak do you really think the landlord or agent would be first on the scene? In my case the landlord lives several hours drive away. The agent is ten minutes drive but only available during office hours. If a neighbour smelt gas when I was out they wouldn't even know which agent to call or who the landlord is so they would just call the emergency services. So would the emergency services hang around on the doorstep not knowing who to call and waiting for the next office hours or would they break in anyway?

Your scenario with the tenant being more liable would be unlikely to happen as it would require an emergency AND for the tenant to be out & unable to return with the key quicker than the LL/agent could AND for the agent/LL with key to be on the spot in time to prevent the emergency services breaking in anyway. Only in this case where there was damage that could have been prevented if the tenant hadn't changed the locks would the lock changing increase the tenant's liability for door/window repairs. (If the emergency was due to a tenant's negligence and the emergency services break in the tenant would likely still be liable even if he hadn't changed the locks).

As a tenant I'd be happy to take the small risk of the above event happening and having to pay for a door repair to get security of knowing no one else can access my home and that my contents insurance isn't voided by all and sundry (previous tenants, friends of previous-tenants, miscellaneous workmen, previous selling agents, previous letting agents, current agents and LL) having keys. Theft or damage without any signs of break in is likely to cost me far more and piece of mind is priceless.

DVardysShadow

clutton wrote: »

""The question of whether a tenant is running a business from a rental property is a valid one with financial implications for the LL.""

what type of financial implications ?

Insurance presumably?

poppysarah

Mouseman wrote: »

I asked this question on another thread but am still left wondering:

If you rent and you change the locks without telling the landlord - what happens in that odd case of emergency when they are entitled to enter the property (suspected gas/water leak?) and they can't? Sure, they break a window or door to gain entry but it's a big pain in the neck for all concerned. Who would be responsible for the damages caused?

Thanks

Water leak serious enough to need to get in to immediate - break the door down. Gas leak break the door down.
You'd never wait for someone to turn up with keys.

I wouldn't want a landlord who randomly carried my keys around with them anyway. Keys should be stored securely.

poppysarah

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Insurance presumably?

If you don't own you can't secure any debts on the property. If you're a conman then any normal rules aren't going to apply.

vistors to your business might cause neighbour issies. stock/noise/etc

franklee

poppysarah wrote: »

Water leak serious enough to need to get in to immediate - break the door down. Gas leak break the door down.
You'd never wait for someone to turn up with keys.

I wouldn't want a landlord who randomly carried my keys around with them anyway. Keys should be stored securely.

I agree. Also with the houses I've lived in it's possible to turn the water and gas off from the outside which is what I think say transco do to make safe if a gas leak is reported. I've no idea how many properties allow it to be done from the outside. Doing the repair and putting the gas back on then waits for a usual appointment with an engineer and is no longer an emergency.

Mouseman

Good explanations guys. I was of course referring to the clause sometimes seen along the lines of "The landlord has right of entry in case of maintenance and in case of emergency" - water and gas leaks were those that sprang to mind immediately but obviously fireman sam would quickly gain entry. I guess it's more just a stupid damn clause in the first place so should be near enough ignored! Was just wondering, hypothetically like

I spose it all changes when LL has to come round for repairs when you're not in, then you have to replace the original lock for a day or two! :rotfl:

Cheers for the comprehensive replies

PS - far more of a PITA to replace locks in a UPVC door methinks? :eek: