Land lady wants to paint the house - while we live in it!

seven-day-weekend

tbs624 wrote: »

The vast majority of tenants don't have an issue over access per se. The problems seem to arise when LLs and LAs approach the matter the wrong way.

There are two implied covenants which apply to ASTs - one is the LLs right of access so that he can see to his s11 repairing obligations and the other is the Ts right to quiet enjoyment. It should be all about finding the right balance between the two.

There'd probably be far less aggro all round if LLs said to their Ts

" I need to come into your home to check/do x , please can we fix a mutually agreeable day/time" rather than
" I am coming round at 10.45 on Thursday and if you're not there I'll let myself in by key", which is what seems to be a regular occurrence.

In your friends' case they could, as NDG says, have sought a court order to enforce access. They were also at liberty to pursue the T for costs arising from damage to the property if those were incurred because s/he failed to report repairs issues to the LL

My friends used to ring or write to their tenants requesting a mutually acceptable time. There never was a 'right' time. Then the tenants asked them not to ring as it was 'intrusive'. Then they ignored written communication asking for access. Then my friends wrote by recorded delivery to say they were coming at such-and-such a date and time to do necessary work and the guy would ring them and say it was really inconvenient, his dog had diarhoea, his son had to have a haircut, they had to cook the dinner etc, etc, and 'all this hassle' was making his wife ill.

So they could never legally gain access to their own house! It was a nightmare.

I don't know why they didn't pursue a court order, maybe they didn't know about it, and there would be no point chasing the tenants for any expenses as they were on Benefits.

westlondonbuyer

Tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment of their property.

Landlords do not have the right to carry out interior decoration as it is not legally considered "essential maintenance" unless being carried out at the tenant's request or following damage to the building.

Your landlord is doing this to avoid a void period at the end of her tenancy. However, s/he is doing so at your inconvenience and your expense so you are entitled to compensation for this.

You have every right to refuse to have this redecoration during this tenancy, and having been both a landlord and a tenant, my advice to both of you is that you should. The potential problems in this scenario are many, and damage to your property is just one of them.

westlondonbuyer

tbs624 wrote: »

The vast majority of tenants don't have an issue over access per se. The problems seem to arise when LLs and LAs approach the matter the wrong way.

I agree 100%.

A tenancy is a business relationship. Your tenant is your client, not your serf. Similarly, your landlord is not an ogre or a thief, just a supplier of a service you're buying.

People would do well to remember this. I seriously doubt anyone would treat a business client the way many landlords treat their tenants; and vice versa.

dizziblonde

I only have an issue over access when it's done in a "bullying" way. The difference between a letter saying "can you contact me to arrange a time for blokey to come round and repaint x room" and "blokey will be coming round at X o clock on X day and WILL be painting x room, if you are not in he will use my key to let himself in" is massive in terms of how much it can get your back up.

Having said that - my last two landlords have both been fond of the short notice repair job routines, one would knock and say he's varnishing all the doors in the block that day, can he leave mine ajar to dry as I was in, and the other one just sends a guy round at random on the offchance we're in. I don't generally mind if it's pleasantly done and I'm in the house - but any letter TELLING me they'll be in on x day, when I wouldn't be in the house (I can rearrange work to be around if I get warning about it) and I'd be digging my heels in mildly - I just get funny about the idea of someone trapising round my home when I'm not there to know about it.

I don't think that's particularly unreasonable as a tenant to be honest and I think the majority would just feel the same kind of way, yet if we assert some rights to get that kind of agreement when work is done - we're painted as evil uncooperative villains who want to live in squallor by some.

*miaomiao*

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

Your landlord is doing this to avoid a void period at the end of her tenancy. However, s/he is doing so at your inconvenience and your expense so you are entitled to compensation for this.

I agree. Your LL is trying to see what he/she can do while you are living there to avoid a void period after you leave the property when they would otherwise have to do the painting. It sounds like you would be taken advantage of and from personal experience, it really isn't simple when things have to be moved around for repainting and carpeting - you will need to move the entire house about, belongings from one room to another, etc. I would refuse.

By the way, why would you need to repaint 2 'faded' walls? This sounds like it might be something considered reasonable wear & tear, etc. How could you have faded the walls yourself?

*miaomiao*

BTW, I wouldn't suggest it if you can avoid it, but it is legally permissible to change the locks to your property as long as you keep the original lock and replace this when you leave. If you are intending to leave around May time next year and aren't bothered about not renewing your contract (which I wouldn't do because your LL sounds not worth it), this could be a possibility.

Ulfar

As the op has already mentioned repainting while rooms are full will be an absolute nightmare. The LA have already let slip that she wants to put the rent up, I would get ready to move.

As for the council will pay more, is the property in the last 30th percentile of the market, if not then no they won't as changes are coming.

This sort of decoration should be done in between tenancies or if the tenancy is very long term one room at a time. It is a huge inconvenience and there are issues over damage to items and security of the tenants goods. If it is just a handy man does he also have third party liability insurance.

I would suspect it is more likely that she once to decorate the property to sell but doesn't want the void period.

boliston

I think the idea of painting with a tenant "in situ" seems a bit mad when painting an empty property is very quick and easy vs painting an occupied property takes far longer and is more hassle.

An empty property can probably be painted in a single day rather than over several days faffing about shifting things the whole time.

The landlord is also being a bit silly as it's always easier to let a freshly painted property than one that already has a few scuffs on the walls and looks "lived in".

MissMoneypenny

tbs624 wrote: »

" I need to come into your home to check/do x , please can we fix a mutually agreeable day/time" rather than
" I am coming round at 10.45 on Thursday and if you're not there I'll let myself in by key", which is what seems to be a regular occurrence.

"I would like" might be better than "I need";)

If the LL is painting wood because it needs paint to maintain it, that should be allowed imnsh opinion. Repainting inside walls....no. Will your insurance be void if anything goes missing?

Maybe look for another house and let the LL paint when the house is empty? I can see why they want to paint when you are in there, as she won't want a void on the rent.

Ulfar

You could always ask that she re-homes you for the period, if not then say no.

Its not just the painters being there, damage or security but what about the smell.