Our we being reasonable regrads to viewings?

abbadon3

But the facts of this case are that the LL did not actualy assume consent and enter the property. He stated he assumed if they did not reply that they were giving consent. He has then obviously left it long enough for them to get in contact with him. Thus he has done nothing wrong.

The worst thing you could possibly be annoyed at him for is poor wording.

dizziblonde

You're being more than reasonable - they've got times that viewings are a go-go, and they're pushing their luck with the "oh if we don't hear we'll let ourselves in" line anyway (and you bet they know it).

I'm not always contactable on my mobile (unless you want the person teacher your kid's class to stop to answer their phone... nup didn't think so!), I return messages when I pick them up during downtime, but I'd be cross at the presumptuousness of that one. I also always refused unsupervised access to the property when we rented - while we rented it was our home and I didn't particularly want people going around it when I wasn't there, plus I wanted to make sure the escape artist disabled cat (which we had permission to have before any smart alecs chip in) wasn't let out.... and letting agencies do tend to be highly highly selective with their recall of law sometimes - we had short notice viewing attempts which we generally complied with if we were available (I drew the line at the Christmas Eve one though), we had them sending workmen around un-notified and me finding three blokes suddenly out in the back garden assessing the state of the render which gave me the fright of my life to be honest (thank god I wasn't walking around half dressed that day).

I hate any assumption that the lack of an instant reply = yes though.

abbadon3

I agree - a lack of an instant reply should not be assumed to = yes. If there is a lack of a relyu over a reasonable amount of time however i don't see what the problem is. The LA/LL has given plenty of notice and upon being phoned back can re-arrange things to suite the tennant...

ViolaLass

abbadon3 wrote: »

I agree - a lack of an instant reply should not be assumed to = yes. If there is a lack of a relyu over a reasonable amount of time however i don't see what the problem is.

I don't get your point here - you appear to be saying that relying on a lack of a 'no' is OK provided the LL/agent has waited 'a reasonable amount of time'.

In this situation, a lack of no should never be taken to mean yes (unless the tenant has previously and freely agreed that it should).

Out,_Vile_Jelly

abbadon3 wrote: »

But the facts of this case are that the LL did not actualy assume consent and enter the property. He stated he assumed if they did not reply that they were giving consent. He has then obviously left it long enough for them to get in contact with him. Thus he has done nothing wrong.

The worst thing you could possibly be annoyed at him for is poor wording.

This is what the OP said: "The Estate Agent left messages on both my partners and my phones to arrange a viewing and stated 'if we do not hear back from you we will assume it is ok and let ourselves in'."

It is definitely not ok to assume this (in terms of statute, and in general business demeanour), regardless of whether they did actually proceed without permission. It is an attitude that smacks of casual disregard to the tenant's home and needs to be politely, but firmly, corrected. In what other professional sphere could this sort of slack approach be tolerated? Estate agents must be truly unemployable elsewhere.

slyracoon

abbadon3 wrote: »

I agree - a lack of an instant reply should not be assumed to = yes. If there is a lack of a relyu over a reasonable amount of time however i don't see what the problem is. The LA/LL has given plenty of notice and upon being phoned back can re-arrange things to suite the tennant...

A lack of reply should never = yes, even if the Landlord has waited a reasonable amount of time. The tenant has sole use of the property during the tenancy.
If the tenant is not contactable or refuses access the Landlord must issue a section 21 and evict the tenant before he can legally enter. The landlord cannot legally enter just by assuming the tenant dosen't mind because he didn't reply to his request.

abbadon3

I understand what you are all saying, really i do. But can you not see that you are all going completely over the top?

@Out, Vile Jely - Actualy it's completely ok for him to assume this. I assume it won't rain later. Making an assumption that you do not act on in no way effects anyone. Since you all love the law so much - please point me to the bit where it says people are no longer aloud to assume or think. That's right we haven't started making laws that suffocate free-speech and disallow people from having thoughts. He can say whatever he likes and he can assume whatever he likes. He didn't at any point do anything that is against the law. He did not enter the property. He did not try to enter the property. ALL he has done is inform the tennant of his plans in regards to viewing and then got a response which suites both parties. It really doesn't matter in the slightest that his wording included "assume". As in - you can moan and whinge and band together as tennants as much as you like - but the LL has done nothing wrong.

See we can all be pedantic and hide behind the law. Fun isn't it.

Seriously though - how you lot think this is such a massive issue is beyond me.

slyracoon

In your earlier post you were indicating that it would be ok for the Landlord to enter if he got no response from the tenant. That would not be acceptable and we were pointing out that fact. You are correct though that in this case the tenant has responded and the only issue is landlords workind of his request, if the tenant had not responded though that does not give the landlord permission to enter by just assuming that the tenant agrees, (as stated in the LA email).

abbadon3 wrote: »

Or, maybe you are going on the basis that the Tennant never gets back to the LL and just ignores this phone message?

In which case the situation is:

LA/LL contact Tennant on both phone numbers left with them by the tennant as the way to contact them. They request a viewing and say that should the tennants not get back to them, they will assume they are agreeing.

The tennant does not get back to them and thus so far has been uncontactable.

The LL is looking to get new tennants in as soon as possible so as to minimize his financial costs. The tennant is still ignoring the message.

The LL assumes that since he has contacted the tennant on both numbers available to him and left a message on both and has left it a reasonable amount of time that the tennant agrees.

slyracoon

Please nobody else feed the troll.

abbadon3

But im hungry