How to politely refuse viewings?

FTBFun

h63298 wrote: »

Thanks for your point. I do wonder therefore what the point of the contracts are. I have to say it is more in the favour of the tenants and that what is in there stands for them. Which I totally appreciate and agree with but it should be both ways. We are still unable to get another tenant out who has not paid since the first month of her contract. Yet in the contract it states she has to pay rent! but it does not seem to stand?? thanks though

The contract does stand, hence why after two months of arrears you can begin the process of terminating the contract through eviction.

How are you referencing your tenants? As you seem to have had some fairly poor ones.

h63298

sorry I dont understand why this is stupidity. I fully reference someone and in good faith rent out my property but I cannot blame the law for the fact that she is still there 6 months later. For your information we have gone down the property routes and been to court and we do have been given the right for her to be removed but she has not done so. Its still now a cause of waiting another 4 to 6 weeks for the bailiffs to turf her out. I have gone down the proper routes for everthing and have full insurance for this all! There is not stupidity on inexperience here! all contracts and checks are professionally done, but the law is still in the tenants favour!

h63298

FTBFun wrote: »

The contract does stand, hence why after two months of arrears you can begin the process of terminating the contract through eviction.

How are you referencing your tenants? As you seem to have had some fairly poor ones.

Hi I have these referenced by well known property management companies and also through a insurance company. References unfortunately do not prevent someone from just deciding they would rather not pay after one month and live there! No we have been very unlucky but I dont think this is down to us not doing the right thing but just to the fact that we have been unlucky with untrustworthy tenants. I just hope we finally find some that have some respect.

FTBFun

h63298 wrote: »

Hi I have these referenced by well known property management companies and also through a insurance company. References unfortunately do not prevent someone from just deciding they would rather not pay after one month and live there! No we have been very unlucky but I dont think this is down to us not doing the right thing but just to the fact that we have been unlucky with untrustworthy tenants. I just hope we finally find some that have some respect.

I think you need to speak to the people carrying out the references then as it appears they're not doing their jobs properly.

Is it a private let or is LHA playing some part?

h63298

FTBFun wrote: »

I think you need to speak to the people carrying out the references then as it appears they're not doing their jobs properly.

Is it a private let or is LHA playing some part?

It is let through a management compamy. The references were done by a well known high street letting agents (dont really want to name them on here) but they are very big in the south east. I agree and had argued that they should not really be entitled to their very large finders fee for finding us someone who has not paid rent. But apparantely we have not rights here, I have given up on this point. My insurance is also with a very large company whom I have to say have been very good but we have still lost quite a bit of money as it does not cover everything unfortunately. I have to say I am considering doing a private let but I worry bout these issues inthe future!?

MsHoarder

h63298 wrote: »

It is not a business! I do not do tax returns as I earn no money from this! My point I was making was that I am not a large company who has multi lets. I am just someone who has had to move on for personal reasons (which I might add I have every right to do!) and have HAD to rent my property in order to do this!!!! not a individual who goes around buying properties to rent as a BUSINESS. There is no need to call someone stupid as well just cause they have a difference of opinion to you! I do wonder!!

Its a business. Just like if you were to start doing decorating at the weekends for money it would be a business. If your business plan isn't working out then that's unfortunate for you (and I have sympathy for having a non-paying tenant) but the law protects paying tenants homes from their landlords, so that they can live a peaceful life. This includes when the landlord is trying to relet/sell the residence. Possibly you should have looked into this before you decided renting was easy money.

N79

hieronymus wrote: »

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?

I hope we can avoid a nutjob argument and to be honest, I do not dispute what you have said. The main focus here is often on the practical aspect of what a T can do.

First, I assume that we can both agree that tenancies have an implied covenant of quite enjoyment. We can also agree that this covenant does not derive from statute. (IIRC this is from Budd-Scott v Daniel but as you are a lawyer, feel free to post otherwise). I have posted before that this is not an "absolute right".

Second we can also agree that it is quite common for a LL to reserve certain rights within the tenancy agreement. One right that a LL often reserves is the right to enter the premises for the purpose of inspections or viewings, subject to certain conditions. Indeed, in the case of a LL's right of access for carrying out their S11 obligations (LL and T act 1985), this right is implied in all ASTs (and some other tenancies) by statute.

Even when the LL reserves the right to access to conduct viewings, I would agree that there is nothing in common law or statute that would make such a term void. There term is valid.

This leads to the question of how these two "rights" can be reconciled in the event of a dispute but before addressing this issue we also need to note the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as this makes harassment of a T illegal (confirmed in Southwark vs Mills IIRC).

Obviously if the T allows access then there is no problem. Also, I suspect we agree that if the T denies access then it would be a foolish LL who forces their way into the property as they will fall foul of the protection from eviction act.

This leaves the difficult question of what would happen if the T denies access put is not present at the property when the LL gains access (eg via use of a key). To be honest, I would not like to call which way a court would go - this issue has not been tested as the costs normally far out way the likely damages for either party in the world of short term tenancies.

For what it is worth, my view is that if the LL does this once then I suspect that the T does not have any real remedy. However, if the LL repeatedly enters without permission then I suspect that a court would order the LL to stop. Further, the LL may face prosecution for harassment - but this would depend on the number, condition, circumstances and severity of the LL's actions.

Finally, if a LL wants to do this properly and applies to a court to enforce the contract, would a court enforce the contract term of the LL's right to access over the T's implied right to quiet enjoyment and order the T to provide access? I suspect that they would favour the T but we can definitely agree to disagree on this point until someone goes to court!

ilovecheese

I am a tennant and can see this from both points of view. We are in our 3rd rental property, and on both our previous homes, the first viewer through the door took the property, so in both cases we only showed 1 set of people round.

My attitude totaly depends on how I am treated by the agent or the LL, if they treat me with respect, and understand that I live in MY home, and I am doing them a favour by allowing viewings then I have no problem, if however they DEMAND I allow viewings and treat me like a 2nd class citizen without a brain (just because I choose to rent) then they can kiss my A*** !

It all comes down to mutual respect, and compromise, if I have been treated well I will help my LL re-let, I will clean and tidy property before viewings, and in the past have given an absent LL my opinion on prospective tennants.

I can understand LL not wanting to have a void period, but this is something they should be factoring in to their costs. When you rent a propery out - it no longer belongs to you - it belongs to the tennant and it is THEIR home - you cannot have you cake and eat it!

N79

h63298 wrote: »

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

My post was perhaps a little short but I don't think that I have a bad attitude.

h63298 wrote: »

For your information it is NOT a business!

I'm sorry to tell you this but for legal and tax purposes you are a business (although you may well be a sole trader) and have the obligations of a business.

h63298 wrote: »

I am an individual who does not profit in any way shape or form from my rentals.

Are you sure that you don't profit by having the T pay the mortgage on an asset that you will eventually own. That sounds like a profit to me, especially as long term the assets value will go up.

h63298 wrote: »

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.

Which is it? You say you have not asked to go round and then say that each time you go round you ask permission. Sorry, I'm a little confused.

h63298 wrote: »

Luckily my tenants are a lot more reasonable and obviously professional people then some of the posts which have been made on here!

Most Ts are reasonable, as are most LLs. The best approach is always negotiation.

h63298 wrote: »

I suppose you also think its ok for a tenant to stay in a property WITHOUT paying rent for more than 6 months.

Not at all. Any T of mine who fails to pay their rent gets evicted and I will periodically check to see if it worth chasing the outstanding rent while I can take enforcement action.

h63298 wrote: »

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!!

The truth is that in most European countries it would have taken you even longer and cost much more to evict Ts in such circumstances as failure to pay rent may not be an automatic ground for eviction. Even in England, prior to 1988, failure to pay rent was not an automatic ground for eviction so Ts would spin a good sob story to the court and be granted endless "final" chances to amend their ways. Fortunately we don't have to deal with that anymore (well I do on some of my older tenancies but c'est la vie).

h63298 wrote: »

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!

No, I agree with you that reasonable agreement is the way to go but that such an agreement may require the LL to give some benefit to the Ts.

h63298 wrote: »

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 think you misunderstand - there is nothing unreasonable about making a T pay for damage they have caused. Sometimes LL's can be a bit petty but the DPS has stopped this by making sure that a dispute costs the LL - thus ending stupid claims for GBP3 for some trivial item. I always charge T for damage / dirt that they have caused and consider this a very reasonable thing to do.

h63298 wrote: »

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!!!!

I disagree that failing to charge market rent makes you a "good person" or that it excuses other actions (bad LLs often use this argument to justify not meeting their legal obligations). It just makes the LL a poor business person I'm afraid.

N79

h63298 wrote: »

It is not a business! I do not do tax returns as I earn no money from this!

Just to let you know that you are obliged to complete a tax return each year to declare the income even if your rental empire produces no profit. When HMRC catch up you will be fined for each year you have not declared your income and there will be further penalties if you have unpaid tax.

Could I suggest you contact your tax office and sort our your tax returns to avoid a nasty shock in the future.