How to politely refuse viewings?

N79

h63298 wrote: »

I wont take that the wrong way as I suppose from an outsider it may look like this. My only reasoning for getting into the letting business was due to the fact I brought my flat right before the crash and I have negative equity in the property and am unable to sell it. I have moved on for personal reasons and have had to rent this out. My first few years resulted in quite some costs but now with my interest rates I pretty much break even. But I do not rent to make money and this was no on a buy to let schedule it was my home originally.

Your not alone in that position, there are plenty of similar posts on this board form people in who are unable to sell.

I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum - a "medium sized", LL.

Hopefully you will have better Ts next time so will not suffer the huge losses again. For what its worth, even with the best referencing in the world you can still end up with a bad T although good active referencing and management really does help reduce the risk to a manageable level.

Eton_Rifle

tamarto wrote: »

To put it another way how would you feel if while on holiday you hire a car, you quite like the car and are happy with it, but will be returning it at the end of the hire period, would you really think it reasonable forthe hire car company to send people to where you are so they could try the car out to see if they like it while you are still paying for the lease of it?

Didn't think so.

But this is exactly what happens with rental property in other countries so lets try not to make some kind of moral case that this procedure would transgress a universal human right.

It's the law in the UK and that's all it is.

mchale

N79 wrote: »

Indeed it is time to duck. I'm afraid the comment that there is no legal precedent is very very laughable

I'm not ducking yet, the examples you give still do not define a person's right to "quiet enjoyment" for example a quote from the Dennett v. Atherton (1872) case states:

"The covenant for quiet enjoyment is therefore a covenant that the tenant's lawful possession of the land will not be substantially interfered with by the acts of the lessor or those lawfully claiming under him. For present purposes, two points about the covenant should be noticed. First, there must be a substantial interference with the tenant's possession. This means his ability to use it in an ordinary lawful way. The covenant cannot be elevated into a warranty that the land is fit to be used for some special purpose: see Dennett v Atherton (1872) LR 7 QB 316. On the other hand, it is a question of fact and degree whether the tenant's ordinary use of the premises has been substantially interfered with."

Whats the definition of "substantially interfered" I would say its down to opinion, as one persons interpretation will be different to another persons


Thanks for trying but in my opinion you still have not proved precedent for the definition of quiet enjoyment

DVardysShadow

mchale wrote: »

I'm not ducking yet, the examples you give still do not define a person's right to "quiet enjoyment" for example a quote from the Dennett v. Atherton (1872) case states:

"The covenant for quiet enjoyment is therefore a covenant that the tenant's lawful possession of the land will not be substantially interfered with by the acts of the lessor or those lawfully claiming under him. For present purposes, two points about the covenant should be noticed. First, there must be a substantial interference with the tenant's possession. This means his ability to use it in an ordinary lawful way. The covenant cannot be elevated into a warranty that the land is fit to be used for some special purpose: see Dennett v Atherton (1872) LR 7 QB 316. On the other hand, it is a question of fact and degree whether the tenant's ordinary use of the premises has been substantially interfered with."

Whats the definition of "substantially interfered" I would say its down to opinion, as one persons interpretation will be different to another persons


Thanks for trying but in my opinion you still have not proved precedent for the definition of quiet enjoyment

??? If that is a quote from Dennett vs Atherton, then why does it refer to Dennett vs Atherton? It looks more like someone's opinion than a case.

N79

DVardysShadow wrote: »

??? If that is a quote from Dennett vs Atherton, then why does it refer to Dennett vs Atherton? It looks more like someone's opinion than a case.

Quite. A judge referring to their current judgement in the judgement. Could be a nasty circle. (It could be from Southwark vs Mills as the judges gave a (very good) summary of past cases in their decision).

Edit: It is from Southwark vs Mills. McHale you need to read the actual cases if you want to find out what they say, not the one line summaries of the judgements relevant to Southwark given by the judges in that case. As I said before, I suspect these cases will not be on line - you will need to go to a good reference library to read them. /End Edit

I'm giving up trying to help mchale. I really don't know what they want.

Morglin

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!!

You still need to declare all this to the taxman. They will not take kindly to not being informed. :eek:

I also hope, despite you being a 'non-business', that you have registered the tenant's deposits properly, and that you have advised your lender/insurance company.

If not, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to various legal problems.

Lin

digitalphase

h63298 wrote: »

Please spare a thought for the poor landlords. Not all landlords are rich and making lots of money out of their rentals. I for one am making large losses. The only reason I rent my property is so I could buy a house and my flat is in negative equity. ... So I would be two months short on rent. People have families to support as well here and the law is far too much in the tenants favour!!! Be nice people! Esp if your landlords have been helpful throughout your tenancy!

You are a business. You are profitting from letting your flat out as the rent is paying your mortgage on a flat you own. The value of that flat will undoubtedly rise in time. Personally, if I were a LL, I'd make sure the rent covered the mortgage plus a bit extra. If you are making a loss, then that is not the tenant's fault, and rather down to bad business acumen on your part.
The law is far more slanted in LL favour here in England. We do not seem to have many rights as tenants, as I have found out since living in our current property which needs extensive repairs. It is in the contract that it is the LL's duty to fix them, however he hasn't and will not, and we still pay the same rent. Though if we were to break the agreement in anyway like to have wild parties in the night or not pay our rent on time, the LL would have all the rights.

I appreciate you have had bad tenants, but we are not all bad. We take care of our rented properties, paint them, tidy them, as if they were our own houses. I think you need to be more careful who you rent to.

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?

What's a 'nutjob' argument? Sounds funny :rotfl:

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.... 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!!!!

Something strange going on there. I don't see how they can be living in your property rent free for 6 months. Also, you display an appalling lack of business sense by not putting the rent up. I just don't know anyone around here who wouldn't! If you are actually making a loss, and not putting your rent up, then more fool you.

As I said, I am a tenant. We are on a two month notice period to leave our current house. I am pretty sure - without getting it out and having a look - that it says in there about allowing viewings. It also mentions this 'quiet enjoyment' thing.
Our LL is a rich !!!!!! who owns loads of properties that he inherited, however he is not willing to spend any of the huge amount of rent he collects each month on servicing his properties. We have a massive list of problems with this house that he has failed to fix, which it says in the contract he will do, and the LAW actually states he must.
So, we do not like our LL or letting agent - however I would agree to allow them to conduct viewings, on the proviso that we get at least 24 hours notice, and that they turn a blind eye to any packing mess. If they expected us to show tenants around on our own, then I would tell them the truth, if asked, about any problems we have experienced here. I am hazarding a guess they will not even try to conduct viewings while we are still in situ :rotfl:

tara747

evoke wrote: »

OP: stop being a precious Prima Donna and allow the viewings. It's not your house. It belongs to someone else. You're jeopardising a reference and, if I was your landlord, i'd screw you for every penny of the deposit too.

People viewing aren't going to be bothered about your junk lying around in boxes. They're probably going to be glad that you are actually leaving. LOL.

What a lovely person you are.

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.

I don't know where to start tbh. This would be laughable if it weren't for your claim that you are a practising lawyer! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: I despair.

h63298

Morglin wrote: »

You still need to declare all this to the taxman. They will not take kindly to not being informed. :eek:

I also hope, despite you being a 'non-business', that you have registered the tenant's deposits properly, and that you have advised your lender/insurance company.

If not, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to various legal problems.

Lin

Thank you very much for your comment. I have informed the tax man as you say and in fact they responded back to me to confirm that I do not need to do a tax return. It clearly states on HMRC there is no need to a return (if you already do one, which I do through PAYE), unless you earn in excess of £10k gross or £2.4k net. Neither of which applys to me.

Yes I do have the deposit in a legal system and yes I do have all insurances, I also do have permission from my Freeholder.

h63298

digitalphase wrote: »

You are a business. You are profitting from letting your flat out as the rent is paying your mortgage on a flat you own. The value of that flat will undoubtedly rise in time. Personally, if I were a LL, I'd make sure the rent covered the mortgage plus a bit extra. If you are making a loss, then that is not the tenant's fault, and rather down to bad business acumen on your part.
The law is far more slanted in LL favour here in England. We do not seem to have many rights as tenants, as I have found out since living in our current property which needs extensive repairs. It is in the contract that it is the LL's duty to fix them, however he hasn't and will not, and we still pay the same rent. Though if we were to break the agreement in anyway like to have wild parties in the night or not pay our rent on time, the LL would have all the rights.

I appreciate you have had bad tenants, but we are not all bad. We take care of our rented properties, paint them, tidy them, as if they were our own houses. I think you need to be more careful who you rent to.



What's a 'nutjob' argument? Sounds funny :rotfl:



Something strange going on there. I don't see how they can be living in your property rent free for 6 months. Also, you display an appalling lack of business sense by not putting the rent up. I just don't know anyone around here who wouldn't! If you are actually making a loss, and not putting your rent up, then more fool you.

As I said, I am a tenant. We are on a two month notice period to leave our current house. I am pretty sure - without getting it out and having a look - that it says in there about allowing viewings. It also mentions this 'quiet enjoyment' thing.
Our LL is a rich !!!!!! who owns loads of properties that he inherited, however he is not willing to spend any of the huge amount of rent he collects each month on servicing his properties. We have a massive list of problems with this house that he has failed to fix, which it says in the contract he will do, and the LAW actually states he must.
So, we do not like our LL or letting agent - however I would agree to allow them to conduct viewings, on the proviso that we get at least 24 hours notice, and that they turn a blind eye to any packing mess. If they expected us to show tenants around on our own, then I would tell them the truth, if asked, about any problems we have experienced here. I am hazarding a guess they will not even try to conduct viewings while we are still in situ :rotfl:

The tenant who is currently in there not paying rent for you information was checked by a well reputable letting agent (though I do not agree they did their job property), they also passed our insurance cover requirements. They paid the first month and have not paid since. I think that we have both had bad experiences here but like you say not all tenants are bad nor are all Landlords and we are not all rich B***tards are you liked to call him. If my tenants called to say something was not working I would ensure it was fixed (unless of cause it was damanged intentially by them!). Now with the tenant not paying they have a lot more rights then we do as owners of the property. We had to wait 2 months of arrears before we could issue notice. Then they are given another 2 weeks to pay. After this poit you have to arrange a court date which took another month or so. then we were given access back and the tenant given a date to vacant which she decided to ignore! We went to the property as we thought she would have moved out knocked on the door and she was there so we politely left. Now we are told that could be seen as harrashment on our part. She was given another date which she did not leave by but she has now changed the locks and is not answering any calls so we do not know if she has left or not but we still have to wait 4-6 weeks for the bailiffs to go in and turff her out! Now I really fail to see how you can honestly say that the law is in the landlords favour. In my view if someone does not pay the rent then they lose all rights and should have been removed a long time ago but we cannot even call to chase the rent as that would be deemed harrashment!!

I do not really appreciate your comment about displaying an extremem lack of business knowledge. If you cared to look at my posts you will see this was not brought on a buy to let mortgage but was my own personal home, I had to move out and have subsequently rented this. My mortgage rate is very high and again not due to the fact I have bad business knowledge as you so kindly put it but due to the fact that to buy my flat at the time this was my only option. Now the rents in my area would not pick up anymore than another £50 a month which would still leave me slightly short each month so its not my lack of knowledge thank you! I was merely trying to make a case that not all landlords are money grabbing business people but some are just merely trying to cover their costs and all I asked was a bit of co-operation in trying to find a new tenant.

I am sorry you have such a bad experience with your landlord and in the same way I will not paint all tenants with the same brush I like to think that maybe you will step back and re-think your feelings of landlords!!