Quiet enjoyment/Property visits

Soniclord

Can someone please provide me with a link to any such law regarding property visits, because I read somewhere if I so wished I could refuse all property visits if I so wished. But I can't find out where I read it now.

I don't intend to refuse all property visits but it would be good to know if there was somewhere such as Shelter that mentioned property visits.

Yorkie1

As you say, it's the concept of 'quiet enjoyment'. I don't think it's specifically set out in statute, rather it is implied into contracts by established common law.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/glossary_of_legal_terms/glossary_a-z/15

Soniclord

Thank you Yorkie1

Just to verify as well, presumably property visits would come under the below, where by if I was to refuse them I'm entitled to?? Because common law states I have the right to undisturbed enjoyment of the premises.

A tenant's right of undisturbed enjoyment of premises. Quiet enjoyment is an implied term of all tenancies.

I mean I'm not going to be petty and refuse property visits but if the agency keeps acting so unprofessionally I would do purely based on principle.

Thanks again.

Yorkie1

Apart from emergencies, when the LL can enter without notice, he has to give reasonable notice (I think in writing but others will confirm / correct) of his intention to inspect the property to check whether anything needs doing under his LL's maintainance duties. You have the right to refuse him permission to enter.

Whether or not you wish to do so is entirely a matter for you, but bear in mind that if you do repeatedly refuse permission, your LL is likely to issue you with a s.21 notice of intention to terminate the tenancy at the earliest opportunity, and give you a duff reference into the bargain.

Hump

Landlord can't even access in an emergency without your consent or a court order (though they're unlikely to get done for anything by the courts if you took the matter up - if it's a genuine emergency i.e. flood, fire, gas leak etc) - but having said that if the main problem is the agent being unprofessional then try raising that issue directly with the landlord - after all he/ she is paying for a service.

G_M

There is a lot of misunderstanding about 'quiet enjoyment'. It is not a straightforward right.

The Shelter definition (linked above) is a broadly correct definition as far as it goes, but does not go on to define the conflicting rights against which it must be balanced.

There is a useful debate on the subeject here at Landlordzone.

Soniclord

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Apart from emergencies, when the LL can enter without notice, he has to give reasonable notice (I think in writing but others will confirm / correct) of his intention to inspect the property to check whether anything needs doing under his LL's maintainance duties. You have the right to refuse him permission to enter.

Whether or not you wish to do so is entirely a matter for you, but bear in mind that if you do repeatedly refuse permission, your LL is likely to issue you with a s.21 notice of intention to terminate the tenancy at the earliest opportunity, and give you a duff reference into the bargain.

Yeah I thought so, thanks for clarifying.

It isn't my landlord I'm refusing, or the agency yet.. I have never met the landlord. Everything goes through the agency and it's the agency who conduct property visits. But the one that took place recently was so demeaning I asked the woman who conducted it to leave as she tried to tell me when I should and shouldn't cut the grass etc. What she fails to realise is that I decide when/when not to cut the grass and it's not yet even at a length whereby it requires cutting. Yet she said "Think you need to cut the grass don't you" but not in the question sense, more in an extremely patronising way.

She fails to realise that even if I decide to keep coal in the bath then that's up to me (I read that elsewhere on the forum lol) here actually https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3030140 post number 51 , as long as when I leave this house it's exactly as it was when I moved in. Obviously I'd never do such a thing but these agencies fail to realise it's my home and I can do what I damn well please as long as the house is as it was when I moved in should I leave after the tenancy agreement expires.

G_M wrote: »

There is a lot of misunderstanding about 'quiet enjoyment'. It is not a straightforward right.

There is a useful debate on the subeject here at Landlordzone.

I'll have a read of that later. Thanks for the link.

Hump wrote: »

If the main problem is the agent being unprofessional then try raising that issue directly with the landlord - after all he/ she is paying for a service.

That's exactly what it is, but to be honest I'm not sure the landlord would want issues raising with himself, because for all intents and purposes it's the landlord who has chosen for everything to go through the agency (the agency being the middle man) and him having nothing to do with us the tenants. Basically down to the fact his last tenants were (so I was told) extremely bad tenants, so we are being tarred with the same brush (so it seems anyway) so the landlord is keeping his distance (which I would probably do but perhaps not as much if I'd have had bad tenants) chances are the landlord has no idea how poor the agency really is but I get the impression that the landlord wouldn't be bothered anyway (that's via the agent, so that doesn't say a lot) so who knows?

Soniclord

Double post - Please delete.

Eton_Rifle

Soniclord wrote: »

Obviously I'd never do such a thing but these agencies fail to realise it's my home and I can do what I damn well please as long as the house is as it was when I moved in

To a point you're right but you do have a unavoidable duty of care to the property, to behave in a "tenant like manner" or whatever the phrase is.

You don't have complete carte blanche to do absolutely whatever you like then attempt to fix it all before you leave.

Soniclord

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

To a point you're right but you do have a unavoidable duty of care to the property, to behave in a "tenant like manner" or whatever the phrase is.

You don't have complete carte blanche to do absolutely whatever you like then attempt to fix it all before you leave.

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally understand that. But they fail to realise I'm not a little child that needs telling when to do something or to have it pointed out to me that the grass needs cutting. At the end of the day the grass isn't even long enough to justify cutting it just yet. But the way the person who conducted the property visit acted, she was telling me I had to do it because she said so.

And when met with someone who comes into my home (because I allowed them in) telling me I must do this, that and the other, I simply won't have that so I asked her to leave and told her I will cut the grass when I'm good and ready and when I think it's long enough to be cut, not when she tells me to.

I also understand that I don't have complete carte blanche to do whatever I please, but the bottom line is that as long as the property I'm renting is returned to the landlord/agent as it was when I moved in (less fair wear and tear) then there won't/shouldn't be any problems.

G_M

And when met with someone who comes into my home (because I allowed them in) telling me I must do this, that and the other, I simply won't have that so I asked her to leave and told her I will cut the grass when I'm good and ready and when I think it's long enough to be cut, not when she tells me to.

You are absolutely right - this is out of order! Landlord/agent should request access, and should not interfere in daily lifestyle (right of quiet enjoyment).

However the LL/agent has certain duties/obligations (routine maintenance; repairs; gas inspections etc) and hence has a right of entry to fulfill these. The legal difficulty is balancing your tenant rights wih the LL's rights.

In most cases, thankfully, both landlord and tenant act reasonably, respect each other, discuss access, and reach a mutually agreeable compromise

Unfortunately on this (and other similar) sites, we tend to only hear the cases (like yours!) where one side or the other has NOT acted reasonably.