Unauthorised Visit

Regshoe

tbs624 wrote: »

* In writing*


The LL is required by law to give notice in writing - the T can however, ask for the time/date to be rearranged for a mutually convenient appt. So, write to the LL/LA and state that you will personally confirm all future appointments with them and that you do not consent to anyone entering the property without the LA/LL having had that confirmation from you.

This rule has always confused me a little, would "Quiet Enjoyment" - i.e. being able to refuse any non-emergency access not supercede the "24 hours notice" rule and make it somewhat redundant?

If a Landlord is only allowed in by consent (emergencies notwithstanding) then why have a notice period for something you can refuse?

Or is it a case of if they give notice in writing and you don't object (and haven't explicity stated before that you refuse entry in all circumstances) then they can assume they have consent?

tbs624

Regshoe wrote: »

This rule has always confused me a little, would "Quiet Enjoyment" - i.e. being able to refuse any non-emergency access not supercede the "24 hours notice" rule and make it somewhat redundant?

If a Landlord is only allowed in by consent (emergencies notwithstanding) then why have a notice period for something you can refuse?

That the T will permit the LLs to view the property's condition & state of repair is an implied covenant for all ASTs, and is tied in with a LL's s11 ( LL & T Act 1985) "repairing obligations" . A T can of course refuse to allow access, but this leaves the T unlikely to be able to complain about outstanding repairs issues and the LL with the option of pursuing a Court Order to enforce access ( with a poss application against the T for costs and the costs of any subsequent deterioration to the property) and an eviction at the first available lawful opportunity.

The T's right to QE is also an implied covenant, courtesy of statute.

IMO, it is all about both parties being " reasonable" . It is reasonable that the T expects to be able to treat the property as his/her home without undue interruption but it is also reasonable to expect that a LL will need to check the property from time to time.

Regshoe wrote: »

Or is it a case of if they give notice in writing and you don't object (and haven't explicity stated before that you refuse entry in all circumstances) then they can assume they have consent?

IMO it would be a foolish LL who simply assumed that entry was agreed to ( although soime clearly do) - intelligent LAs/LLs ask for the T to confirm the appointment os suggest an alternative is that's not suitable.

princeofpounds

If a Landlord is only allowed in by consent (emergencies notwithstanding) then why have a notice period for something you can refuse?

You worked it out yourself. It's so that you can write something that gives standing permission into the contract, so that if the LL doesn't hear anything they can just proceed. The 24hrs thing is just a legal minimum standard. But as I noted above, it's not a criminal issue so breaking it is only a legal problem when accompanied by some sort of civil damage.

GDB2222

tbs624 wrote: »

IMO, it is all about both parties being " reasonable".

Absolutely agree:
The landlord should respect the tenant's privacy.
The tenant should not change the locks, and just as importantly should not feel he needs to.

Shakethedisease

The tenant should not change the locks, and just as importantly should not feel he needs to.

If I was just coming out of a shower and 2 strange blokes appeared in my hallway.. yes I'd feel the need to ( after I'd dialled 999 ).

Look, there's lots of waffle here about how landlords won't take tenants on benefits because it will invalidate their insurance. Tenants have insurance too.. Do you think any insurance company would pay out with the knowledge that agents, landords, and random maintance plumbers, electrians etc as well as an undefined number of potential viewers if the landlord is selling up..do you think contents insurance would pay out knowing that the landlord was giving out keys to them all for unconfirmed/unannounced/unsupervised visits ???

In short, if one of my very expensive laptops went missing, and I then had to admit my landlord was giving out the keys willy-nilly. That'd cost !! Tenants have insured valuable's where they live too you know.

As for the plonker who's going on about how any tenant that changed the locks after something like this would be out. Get a grip.

If you were sitting in your OWN house watching telly, kids asleep upstairs and two strange men appeared in the doorway dressed in overalls and holding large spanners ? You'd !!!!!! yourself. :eek: Folks have gone to jail ( Tony Martin etc ) reacting to ''un-invited visitors' like that. Don't expect your tenants to put with with it either. Home-owner/landlord/tenant.. it makes no difference whatsoever. It's not a welcome scenario for anyone.

Scary, not safe, not insurable for tenants and not acceptable for anyone to have to put up with strangers EVER unexpectedly walking in on them in their everyday life. Especially when you're paying damn good money to call a house YOUR home.

GDB2222

As for the plonker who's going on about how any tenant that changed the locks after something like this would be out. Get a grip.

That's me you're talking about. Why don't you read what I actually wrote?

dopester

Shakethedisease wrote: »

not acceptable for anyone to have to put up with strangers EVER unexpectedly walking in on them in their everyday life. Especially when you're paying damn good money to call a house YOUR home.

Totally agree.

Watching this video scene (1min, 18 secs) from Life On Mars, with Sam Tyler having travelled back in time to 1973... it's just as bad in 2010 in my opinion. TRESPASS. Totally unacceptable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Un5Zj6WQ0

There needs to be a full scale crackdown on landlords and their agents. The law enforced, and proper penalties given in courts (big fines / sent to prison) against landlords to uphold the law and deter this trespass. I think that video and the video description sums up how I feel about it.

BaldPlumber

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As for the plonker who's going on about how any tenant that changed the locks after something like this would be out. Get a grip.

Quite agree. It occurs to me that a lot of landlords take the lord part of the name a little bit too seriously. It often also mysteriously empowers them with multi-trade super powers, enabling them to deal with potentially life threatening emergencies at the drop of a hat, but only if they have the key to the property. Whilst they feel qualified and have the tools, expertise and equipment to deal with a gas leak efficiently, it does seem a bit unreasonable for them to know how to gain access to a property unless they have the key to the lock held on by 3 * 1/8" wood screws.

I hate the term landlord and feel it should be replaced with a more accurate term; sponger, mortgage-dodger, ponce, HPI ramper etc would be good alternatives. This of course is entirely at odds with their self view, which seems to be one of benevolent, kindly, self effacing housing provider for the under privileged who didn't have the nous to lies their !!!!!s off on their self certification mortgage forms and then get someone else to pay it whilst adopting an infuriating air of superiority.

mardatha

Put a bolt on the door ! At least it makes you feel more secure when you're at home.

dopester

mardatha wrote: »

Put a bolt on the door ! At least it makes you feel more secure when you're at home.

It doesn't stop some landlords knocking on door unexpectedly, demanding access for an inspection or whatever else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_3UMI73Ck
(27 seconds. Warning, some bad language)

You can't put the bolt on when you're out, and they open door to come in and do whatever - or have one of their agents/workers/strangers enter with keys they've supplied. Stop trespassing. Stop intimidating and trying to trample on tenant's rights.