Council disclosed information to landlord

FBaby

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

What I am saying is that the landlord can't tell a tenant how to live in their home as that is what the law states. However, the property has to be returned in the same condition, less fair wear and tear.

I don't know anything about the law, but find this hard to believe. Why then are landlords/agencies entitled to visit the property every 3 months to check on the property? You seem to think that if they knock off walls whilst they lived there but promised that they would built it back before leaving they wouldn't be able to be evicted?

I really hope you are very wrong...

birkee

FBaby wrote: »

I don't know anything about the law, but find this hard to believe. Why then are landlords/agencies entitled to visit the property every 3 months to check on the property? You seem to think that if they knock off walls whilst they lived there but promised that they would built it back before leaving they wouldn't be able to be evicted?

I really hope you are very wrong...

Where missmoneypenney goes wrong, is assuming the tenancy law overides everything, and prevents Landlords harrassing tenants adinfintum. The tenant can't be told how to live their life etc.

Well, let me give a couple of examples.
Two tenants, paying their rent, no complaints from co residents.
One was homosexual, none of the Landlords business I know, but the first one was called Nielson, and he brought men home, had sex, then murdered them. Then he cut up their bodies and put them down the drains, eventually blocking them.
The second lived a quiet respectable life with his Wife. It turned out his Wife was carrying out abortions, and he was murdering women and burying them in the property. He even got another tenant hanged for murder. The name was Christie. Ring any bells?

At what point IS the Landlord entitled to have a say in their lives?

As a concession to missmoneypenney, there ARE some bloody awful Landlords who need to be bought to book, but that doesn't entitle the Tenant to carte blanche entitlement to quiet enjoyment of their home under any circumstances.

If Nielson HADN'T blocked the drains ?????

If the tenant hadn't been changing his motor oil and pouring it down the drain, bringing in the water authorities?
If the tenant wasn't having big bonfires in the garden in a smokeless zone?
If the tenant wasn't using the property to store the loot raised by burglary?
If the tenant wasn't using the property to sell drugs from?
etc, etc, etc.

Sixer

FBaby wrote: »

I don't know anything about the law, but find this hard to believe. Why then are landlords/agencies entitled to visit the property every 3 months to check on the property? You seem to think that if they knock off walls whilst they lived there but promised that they would built it back before leaving they wouldn't be able to be evicted?

I really hope you are very wrong...

But when you check, you can't say that because the carpet's dirty, there's a layer of dust, the washing up's not done, or whatever, you're terminating the tenancy. "Quiet enjoyment" is defined in law - and case law - and you can't terminate a tenancy on grounds that the tenant is behaving in a way that the law defines as "quiet enjoyment".

puddy

FBaby wrote: »

I don't know anything about the law, but find this hard to believe. Why then are landlords/agencies entitled to visit the property every 3 months to check on the property? You seem to think that if they knock off walls whilst they lived there but promised that they would built it back before leaving they wouldn't be able to be evicted?

I really hope you are very wrong...

they can ask to visit the property but the tenant does not have to agree

antrobus

birkee wrote: »

...
The second lived a quiet respectable life with his Wife. It turned out his Wife was carrying out abortions, and he was murdering women and burying them in the property. He even got another tenant hanged for murder. The name was Christie. Ring any bells?

...

Given that Mrs Ethel Christie was one of her husband's victims it wasn't she who was the 'abortionist' but rather her husband. Not that Christie actually was an abortionist either. Christie never actually performed any abortions (he wasn't capable of doing so) he simply used that as a ruse to get young women to submit to his 'special gas mixture'. (Being ordinary domestic gas disguised through the liberal use of Friar's Balsam.)

Mind you I'm not sure what any of this has got to do with landlord-tenant law or for that matter the original question.

P.S. And not everybody accepts that Timothy Evans was innocent of murder either.

puddy

ive just realised Fbaby is a landlord, - are you telling me you think that you have the legal right to do a check every 3 months on a property and the tenant HAS to agree to this?

antrobus

Sixer wrote: »

But when you check, you can't say that because the carpet's dirty, there's a layer of dust, the washing up's not done, or whatever, you're terminating the tenancy. "Quiet enjoyment" is defined in law - and case law - and you can't terminate a tenancy on grounds that the tenant is behaving in a way that the law defines as "quiet enjoyment".

Since a landlord can issue a s21 notice without giving any reason whatsover, that is neither here nor there.

birkee

antrobus wrote: »

Given that Mrs Ethel Christie was one of her husband's victims it wasn't she who was the 'abortionist' but rather her husband. Not that Christie actually was an abortionist either. Christie never actually performed any abortions (he wasn't capable of doing so) he simply used that as a ruse to get young women to submit to his 'special gas mixture'. (Being ordinary domestic gas disguised through the liberal use of Friar's Balsam.)

Mind you I'm not sure what any of this has got to do with landlord-tenant law or for that matter the original question.

P.S. And not everybody accepts that Timothy Evans was innocent of murder either.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It was Ethel that was the abortionist, and it was after he murdered her, that Christie tried to carry on, but was incompetant, and murdered to cover up the evidence.
The first one he tried abortion on, was Evans's Wife, for whom he got Evans hanged

p.s. The point was, that Tenants can behave in ways that demand Landlord interference, regardless of the Law on "right to peaceful enjoyment" of the property.

puddy

they can, but if it goes to court it will be dragged out possibly until the end of the natural contract anyway. will the judge always agree anyway?

FBaby

puddy wrote: »

ive just realised Fbaby is a landlord, - are you telling me you think that you have the legal right to do a check every 3 months on a property and the tenant HAS to agree to this?

ha ha, like how you jump to conclusion... my wording was 'entitled' to do a check every 3 months, long way away from having a legal right to do so, but surely, what is the point of this entitlement if in the end, there is nothing you can do at all with what you could find?

Of course I am not talking about dirty carpet, I am talking about more serious matters such as holes in the walls, cables ripped apart, smell of dog's poo and such things.

At which stage tenants' rights start and landlord's stops and vice versa? Surely that is the basis of the contract? If the landlord doesn't want dogs in the property and states it in the contract, it is up to the tenant to decide whether they are prepared to abide by it or not. If they don't like it they can go somewhere else... so surely if a landlord does a visit and find 5 dogs with damage to the property and horrible smell coming from the brand new carpets, they have a right to give notice for the dogs to go and repairs carried out immediately and then give notice of eviction if still not sorted after a certain time?