Is This Legal? UPDATE on page 3.

*qwerty*

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

An agent is just that, an agent who acts for and on behalf of the landlord who appointed them. They never actually work on behalf of any tenants as they don't enter into any contracts with them. In law, the final responsibility alway rests with the landlord. I would be very surprised indeed if it was not the landlord who is ultimately responsible for your deposit. I mean, he was the idiot who entered into a contract with the shyster agent, not you, you didn't have any choice.

Enquiring minds need to know....

Oh, how I wish Clutton or Artful were on here right now

Sorry to ask B&T but who is our contract with? Is it with the LL? I just assumed ours was with the LA and then they have one with the LL?

I'm glad you and princessamy see it that same way as I do and that is that ultimately we had no say over the LA! I've just never wanted to kick up a fuss as we are on very good terms with our LL which will hopefully pay off in the future when we need a reference etc.

BitterAndTwisted

No, your contract is with the landlord. The agent is just the landlord's intermediary

Fire_Fox

*qwerty* wrote: »

"most management companies insist this is done in normal working hours
& if you can not attend they will advise and access, this is perfectly
legal.

I'd e-mail back and politely ask them to direct you of legislation that allows them to trespass in your home and undermines your right to quiet enjoyment?

"The tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment of the property for the duration of the tenancy along with the legal right to live in property as if it was their own home. This means that they have the right to a peaceful existence without undue disturbance. Harassment is a criminal offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and may result in the landlord being fined, or even imprisoned in extreme cases. Harassment can take the form of:

• Entering the property without permission.
• Changing the locks without giving the tenant warning or new keys.
• Cutting off utilities such as gas water and electricity.
• Tampering with mail or possessions.
• Verbal or physical abuse or threats.
• Enter the tenant's home whilst the they are out."

http://www.themovechannel.com/guides/Letting/Being_a_landlord/Landlord_and_tenant_rights/

*qwerty*

Brilliant Fire Fox!

Thank you so much...

Lets just hope thats the end of it and then I can move onto trying to determine wether I am entitled to get our deposit back!

N79

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

An agent is just that, an agent who acts for and on behalf of the landlord who appointed them. They never actually work on behalf of any tenants as they don't enter into any contracts with them. In law, the final responsibility alway rests with the landlord. I would be very surprised indeed if it was not the landlord who is ultimately responsible for your deposit. I mean, he was the idiot who entered into a contract with the shyster agent, not you, you didn't have any choice.

Enquiring minds need to know....

Oh, how I wish Clutton or Artful were on here right now

Well I am not Artful or Clutton but I can answer this question.

Until a few weeks ago I would have agreed BandT however Mr Justice Tugendhat stated in para 39 of his judgement in Draycott & Draycott v Hannells on the responsibility of Letting Agents

" There is no reason why the penalty should be imposed on the person who, at the time the court order is made, happens to be holding the deposit. The penalty should be imposed on a person who is responsible for the failure to comply with s.213. In the present case that is the Defendant, and not the actual landlord (assuming, at this stage, that there has been a non-compliance which attracts an order under s.214(4))."

Which makes it clear that, if the failure to protect was the result of the actions of LA and not the LL then it is the LA who should be taken to court.

Full judgement is here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/217.html

*qwerty*

Thanks N79 Just our luck Still seems a bit unfair though when we didn't choose the LA and besides, surely the LL would have more chance at getting their money back through insurance or liquidators? You would think that tenants can claim from their LL and the LL through the LA.

And just to add that I sent an email to my LA and said that I would be available anytime from next week onwards so for them to let me a time and date and I'll be around and also that it is indeed illegal for them to trespass in tenants homes without permission and they certainly don't have ours to which I've received

I know it is against the law, but we can impose financial constraints as it
is in your contract to allow these inspections.


What the heck does this mean? Can they charge us for not allowing them entry? (Which might I add is NOT the case at all- I have tried to arrange an app. twice to which both emails from them have tried to impose some sort of power over us) I'm just interested now as I thought we had entitlement to "quiet enjoyment"

Soot2006

Gotta love any sentence that starts with

"I know it's against the law, BUT ..."

I'd say they're blowing hot air now. You ARE allowing the inspections, as per contract, and as per your statutory rights, you're trying to organise them for a convenient time. Not to mention I reckon you could just change the locks and ignore the LA from now on and move out at the first legal opportunity.

sooz

*qwerty* wrote: »

I know it is against the law, but......

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I cannot believe that they put that in writing. They forgot to turn their one brain cell on before replying.

BitterAndTwisted

Querty, don't respond to their implied threat just reiterate that you have never denied them the opportunity to carry out an inspection and you are currently doing your best to facilitate one. There's absolutely no profit in trying to argue with idiots.

clutton_2

""I know it is against the law, but we can impose financial constraints as it
is in your contract to allow these inspections. ""

what a laugh !!! let them try... a judge would laugh this out of court...

i have just had a major battle with my LA and refused them access - they want inspections every 3 months, and i was to wait in from 1000-1700 at their convenience.... !! i DONT think so........ i said i would accept annually (my LL's son comes into my home every 3-4 weeks - DONT ask !! - and can see the property is fine)

We compromised on 6 months... but i dare say i will be out when he comes... (wink -wink )