How to politely refuse viewings?

BornAtTheRightTime

Um. Many people will be on here shortly to point out that a contract cannot override statutory rights.

Yorkie1

I'll just add to BATRT ... a contract cannot override statutory rights. Hieronymus' first paragraph is absolute rubbish.

hieronymus

Sorry, hadn't realised this was a nutjob issue. Leases can and do reserve rights of access to the landlord for all sorts of reasons. The reservation doesn'r "overrride statutory rights", it just limits the scope of their applicability. Hint: why does the op allow six monthly inspection visits.

No interest in getting into a nutjob argument, and I am embarrassed to mention this, but I am a real live practising lawyer. You?

Soot2006

Hint: why does the op allow six monthly inspection visits.

Because they would like their tenancy renewed, etc ...

I know plenty of T who do not allow inspections once they've moved in. Yes, even after signing the contract. Some LL panic and kick out, some shrug and forget they ever wanted to do an inspection anyway.

Cissi

hieronymus wrote: »

Sorry, hadn't realised this was a nutjob issue. It wasn't - at least not until now?

Leases can and do reserve rights of access to the landlord for all sorts of reasons. The reservation doesn'r "overrride statutory rights", it just limits the scope of their applicability. Hint: why does the op allow six monthly inspection visits. Possibly to be cooperative and because he sees the value in giving the LL the chance to carry out necessary repairs? Legally he isn't obliged to allow any inspections, only access for emergency repairs.

No interest in getting into a nutjob argument, and I am embarrassed to mention this, but I am a real live practising lawyer. You?

That is embarrassing indeed, if it's true :eek:

G_M

mchale wrote: »

Thanks for that, but it still doesn't clarify the legal definition, the comments would appear to be her opinion,

and the point raised "So if you keep going into your tenants property, without their permission, that is unlawful" over what time frame does that refer to, ie once every week or once every 6 months, its biased on opinion, no one seems to be able to give reference to a court case where "quiet enjoyment" has been defined

You are right that "it still doesn't clarify the legal definition" since not all law is clear. If you want a statute, there is none to quote. But UK law is not just about Acts of Parliament.

And if you want Case Law, that's a toughy too! There is little Case Law. N29 quoted a few precedents, but I accept they are not recent. (note: legal precedents such as N29 quoted only arise in the Higher courts, which Lower courts have to follow. There are plenty of cases of lower courts ruling on access rights - generally in the tenant's favour - but these of course do not provide precedence, so can not be relied on as definitative). The reality, then, is that all one can do is rely on lawyers' "opinion" - which is how you correctly described Tessa's blog.

She is, however, an experienced and respected property solicitor, so her opinion carries some weight. Certainly more so than most of us here.

The reality is that tenant's have implied rights (eg 'Quiet Enjoyment') and landlords have rights (some implied some maybe expressly included in the contract). Where these rights conflict (ie right of access Vs quiet enjoyment), only a court could decide which overrides which.

But it is a foolhardy LL who assumes he has a right of access and acts on it. Particularly when you throw the statute law relating to criminal harrassment into the legal mix.

There is a more detailed explanation of all this here.

BitterAndTwisted

hieronymus wrote: »

No interest in getting into a nutjob argument, and I am embarrassed to mention this, but I am a real live practising lawyer. You?

You might be practicing law of some description but I would hazard a guess that it's not property law in general and most certainly not residential property law in particular or you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense. Perhaps it might be time to get out of your narrow specialty for a change and crack open those dusty old text books?

Nutjob B&T signing off....

h63298

N79 wrote: »

You might think this is unreasonable but English law says that it is very reasonable and if you, as a LL interfere, you are a criminal and society may protect itself against you by sending you to goal.


Your lack of a viable business plan is not the Ts concern. All LLs should expect voids - they are part of the business.


This comment from amateur LLs always makes me laugh. England has the most LL favouring laws of any western jurisdiction. English Ts have the worst terms imposed on them than anywhere else in the "civilised" world.



While most posters here agree that negotiation is the key, why does this have to be a one way street. Perhaps LL's should pay the T for each viewing or reduce the rent to reflect the inconvenience caused? Or perhaps the LL could offer some other inducement to persuade Ts to co-operation.

No - Ts are just expected to put up with whatever is convenient for their LL without anything in return. This is the attitude that annoys Ts.

I have to say i am completely shocked by some of your responses and down right bad attitude to the whole thing.

For your information it is NOT a business! I am an individual who does not profit in any way shape or form from my rentals. I may add that I have not once asked to go to the property in the whole tenancy. I have been more than reasonable and have asked the tenants permission in every instance before going round. Luckily my tenants are a lot more reasonable and obviously professional people then some of the posts which have been made on here!

I suppose you also think its ok for a tenant to stay in a property WITHOUT paying rent for more than 6 months. Something that i have experienced in the past and I have had no rights whatsoever even when i am paying for that person to live rent free in my property! FYI it has costs thousands to even get the court to give us our property back and the tenant stil refuses to leave. I would like to hear your reasonable argument on their rights here and how the landlords have much more rights!!

If you read my post properly you will see I never once said it was a one way street which is why I do not just let myself into my property as while the tenant is paying I appreciate it is there home. I am just asking for some reasonable agreement and co-operation. What would have happended if the previous tenants had been unreasonable not let my tenants view then they would not be living there now. I think you all seem to forget this point!

Also for your information, I am extremely reasonable and there is quite some damage to the property that I could take money for but I wont as I am not that unreasonable and I am quite happy to go in and do the work myself!

I do appreciate there are landlords out there who are not reasonable people and also tenants who are reasonable. But my point was only to make it clear to some of you that we are not all like that and also people like yourselves who should not have to lose money because someone is being unreasonable. In another point my tenants have had reduced rent the whole time they have been there and I did not put it up when I coudl have by at least £100 a month!!!!

h63298

hieronymus wrote: »

Are you absolutely certain the lease does not give the LL the right to arrange viewings in the final month? I bet it does - in which case the right to quiet enjoyment is overridden and of no effect in this specific respect.

Also bear in mind that you risk a lot more than a lost deposit and no references; if you wrongfully prevent the LL from introducing potential tenants he has an ongoing claim against you for lost rent for every month while the property is empty because of your breach of contract.

Thanks for your quote, I also have a clause in my contract which says int he last two months they must give me reasonable access to show perspective tenants around. In my opinion if they prevent this then they are in breach of their contract and I should be entitled to some sort of compensation for not having a tenant in the property?

The_Drama_Llama

h63298 wrote: »

For your information it is NOT a business!

Oh, you're running a charity, are you?