How to politely refuse viewings?

N79

I just wanted to try to answer a couple of your points.

h63298 wrote: »

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.

This was your fault for your lack of understanding of your business. You could have issued notice immediately on 2 discretionary grounds. You could then have issued notice on a mandatory ground when the rent was 2 months UNPAID (not in arrears). This corresponds to arrears of 1 month and 1 day. Its not the law's fault that you do not understand it and failed to seek good legal advice.

h63298 wrote: »

Then they are given another 2 weeks to pay.

Correct

h63298 wrote: »

After this poit you have to arrange a court date which took another month or so.

That's actually fairly quick. There is no case for LL's being treated more favourably that other businesses through some special process though (in fact, they are treated specially for non fault possession hearings which can be conducted under an accelerated procedure with no right of appearance for the Ts - no other business gets such special treatment).

h63298 wrote: »

then we were given access back and the tenant given a date to vacant which she decided to ignore!

That is her right - however she had now breached a court order allowing you to take possession (without violence).

h63298 wrote: »

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.

It would only be seen as harassment by a militant MSE poster, so long as you rang the bell and left when she answered - after all you had a court order for possession in your hands.

h63298 wrote: »

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!

Bailiffs are busy. Again, there is no reason why LLs should receive preferential access to bailiffs over other businesses.

h63298 wrote: »

Now I really fail to see how you can honestly say that the law is in the landlords favour.

It is. English LLs can:
1. Regain possession outside of a fixed period without reason by giving only 2 months notice.
2. Regain possession at the end of a fixed period without reason by giving only 2 months notice.
3. Regain possession when rent is only 1 month and 1 day in arrears.
4. Get preferential treatment by the courts by the provision of an accelerated possession process.

These four points alone stand English law as very LL biased. If we take a representative european system (Belgium) then:

LLs can only regain possession if

a) they told the T at the start of the tenancy that the property was formerly their home
b) must prove this fact
c) they have given the T 6 months notice
d) they can prove that they need the property to house themselves or a close family member

or

e) if the T gets behind on the rent then the LL can ask a court to evict. This is not mandatory and courts normally give Ts several warnings and chances to pay before evicting.

Outwith this process, (or the T ending the tenancy) tenancies more or less renew for ever.

No preferential treatment (quite the reverse, Belgian courts normally go out of their way to side with Ts), no guaranteed evictions for non payment of rent and no way to escape repairing obligations with retaliatory evictions (although Ts do have repairing obligations).

I hope that this makes England (and Wales) seem more LL friendly now!

h63298 wrote: »

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!!

Who decides that the T has lost all rights? The LL - as judge, jury and executioner? Not really in keeping with the principle of English liberty!

suited-aces

tara747 wrote: »

What a lovely person you are.



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.

It's the internet, we're all lawyers!


(and models, and politicians)

hieronymus

If you google "Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements" you will find a pdf document of that title issued by the Office of Fair Trading, on their official website.

The OFT says this. ["excessive" is put in bold by them, not me, and implies that non-excessive rights to demand access are in the view of the OFT fair and enforceable.]

"3.32 We would object to a provision giving the landlord an <b>excessive</b> right to enter the rented property. Under any kind of lease or tenancy, a landlord is required by common law to allow his tenants 'exclusive possession' and 'quiet enjoyment' of the premises during the tenancy. In other words, tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant's consent, except for good reason.

3.33 The same principles apply to terms giving <b>excessive</b> rights to the landlord to demand access for prospective new tenants or purchasers to view the premises."

In the appendix to the document they give this as an example of an unfair term relating to this right

"To permit intending purchasers, tenants or others authorised by the landlord or its agents in writing to enter and inspect the premises at all reasonable times."

And this as an alternative which is in their view fair and reasonable and enforceable:

"On giving the tenant at least 24 hours notice in writing, to allow the landlord, or any person acting on behalf of the landlord, access to view the property, during normal working hours, accompanying a prospective tenant or purchaser of the property."

That is not me talking, it is the OFT. I am sure that the OFT are wrong about this and the local savants on this board are right, but we have to take into account the awful possibility of the judiciary is similarly ignorant and makes the same mistake as the OFT, and I, are obviously making.

You do need to give a couple of seconds' thought to the amount of trouble you could do to an innocent reader of this board who took at face value this sheer garbage about changing locks and so on.

BitterAndTwisted

You're the alleged lawyer so why are you quoting us OFT guidance rather than statute? Or is there no difference between the two?

BornAtTheRightTime

I would actually like a response to this...

suited-aces

They're too busy soliciting...