Required notice period on an assured shorthold periodic?

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Because it is voided by the right to peaceful enjoyment.

Often misunderstood "Peaceful Enjoyment". It is more to do with the right of occupancy rather than Temporary inconvenience. Simply arranging viewings is not a "Peaceful Enjoyment" issue.

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris

Notlob wrote: »

Often misunderstood "Peaceful Enjoyment". It is more to do with the right of occupancy rather than Temporary inconvenience. Simply arranging viewings is not a "Peaceful Enjoyment" issue.

Notlob

I beg to differ. However, even putting that to one side, at the outset of any tenancy, indeed by the very act of granting/creating a tenancy, the LL has bestowed upon his tenant EXCLUSIVE use of his property as their home. As the word suggests, EXCLUSIVE infers a right to exclude, even for viewings. With the exception of an "emergency", it is widely held that a LL would need to obtain a court order to gain access.

Fire_Fox

Notlob wrote: »

Unless the agreement makes it is a requirement. Usually there is a clause stipulating that the tenant must allow viewings in the last two months, or upon service of notice.

Notlob

Unfair or unenforceable clauses in your AST do not override statute. The right to quiet enjoyment is absolute, a tenant can rescind the permission given when signing the AST at any time. It is for the tenant to decide whether the inconvenience is transitory or intrusive, remember some tenants work from home.

"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...tenant_rights/

G_M

Since contrary opinions have been given I feel I have to add my voice here.

Unless the agreement makes it is a requirement. Usually there is a clause stipulating that the tenant must allow viewings in the last two months, or upon service of notice.

Such a clause is unenforcible. It is overridden by the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment so the tenant can refuse to allow viewings whatever the contract says.

A clause giving the landlord the right to evict the tenant if the rent were 24 hours late would also be unenforcible. Just because something is written into the contract does not make it legally binding.

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I beg to differ. However, even putting that to one side, at the outset of any tenancy, indeed by the very act of granting/creating a tenancy, the LL has bestowed upon his tenant EXCLUSIVE use of his property as their home. As the word suggests, EXCLUSIVE infers a right to exclude, even for viewings. With the exception of an "emergency", it is widely held that a LL would need to obtain a court order to gain access.

Correct in respect of obtaining a court order to allow the landlord to do viewings, albeit pointless. But this applies to all terms. The purpose of clauses is to make the parties aware of their responsibilities, duties and commitments. There is a contractual duty for the tenant to permit viewings, if clause exists, and failure to adhere to this requirement AFAIK might result in a successful claim on a deposit. I would be interested if anyone can cite examples.

Why does the OFT allow a viewing clause if it is deemed unfair?

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris

Notlob wrote: »

Correct in respect of obtaining a court order to allow the landlord to do viewings, albeit pointless. But this applies to all terms. The purpose of clauses is to make the parties aware of their responsibilities, duties and commitments. There is a contractual duty for the tenant to permit viewings, if clause exists, and failure to adhere to this requirement AFAIK might result in a successful claim on a deposit. I would be interested if anyone can cite examples.

Why does the OFT allow a viewing clause if it is deemed unfair?

Notlob

To take things to a ridiculous extent, if a LL were to put a clause into the TA to the effect that he could break a tenants fingers/thumbs, one digit at a time on each day that their rent is late, would that be enforcable?

As for the OFT? My guess is that those who know their rights excersise them, those who don't, don't. Neither has any need for the OFT. Tenancy clauses are often regarded as rules by which the LL would WISH to hold the tenant. But they are often over-ridden by statute/legislation.

clutton_2

""With the exception of an "emergency", it is widely held that a LL would need to obtain a court order to gain access""

i recently had a tenant who utterly refused me access for 5 months to do the landlords gas safety certificate... i was advised by several legal eagles that the only way i could fulfil my statutory obligation was by getting a Court Injunction...

so it seems to be that quiet enjoyment over-rides anything put into an AST

having said that.. i did at one point enter the property without her permission as there was an emergency.... a potential arson threat

Wee_Willy_Harris

Even large social LLs have to go to the extent of court orders for gas safety checks. Madness, but that's life I guess. Fortunately, tenants requiring that kind of action are pretty few and far between.

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

To take things to a ridiculous extent, if a LL were to put a clause into the TA to the effect that he could break a tenants fingers/thumbs, one digit at a time on each day that their rent is late, would that be enforcable?

Only by a court order!

The issue here is the definition of "quiet enjoyment" and as stated earlier, I do not believe that a viewings clause fits in the category. If any of the posters who have disagreed with me on this point are solicitors, then put your hand up and I will bow.

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris

Notlob wrote: »

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

To take things to a ridiculous extent, if a LL were to put a clause into the TA to the effect that he could break a tenants fingers/thumbs, one digit at a time on each day that their rent is late, would that be enforcable?QUOTE]

Only by a court order!

The issue here is the definition of "quiet enjoyment" and as stated earlier, I do not believe that a viewings clause fits in the category. If any of the posters who have disagreed with me on this point are solicitors, then put your hand up and I will bow.

Notlob

So, having groups of strangers traipsing through your home with just 24 hours notice, even if you aren't there, wouldn't effect the way you enjoy your own home?