We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
LA Unauthorised Viewings, bit of a rant, advice please! (long)
Comments
-
jjlandlord wrote: »But that does not mean that tenant is entitled to refuse all visits as the clause says he agreed to allow them.
I totally agree with you (I was mid edit to add this as an agreement with you when you posted - damn my slow fingers!)jjlandlord wrote: »I don't think that the wording can be interpreted as meaning that LL/agent may not need to give notice.
In any case, since statute says notice must be given then that what must be done.
According to the OP this is what the LL was claiming. I was under the impression the LL was assuming they could enter whenever they liked due to the fact the OP had signed the "if possible" clause. Hence the sham unenforceable contract due to.... (you know the rest of my argument...)0 -
Thanks for your replies everyone... To address some of the points you've raised....
They've already given us a reference for our new property, so that's something we shouldn't need to worry about.
We were quite happy to be flexible with regards to viewings until they entered our house uninvited and unannounced yesterday lunchtime (what if myself and my partner had been home having a lunchtime quickie!?) - since then, we're rather less inclined to be coperative. It could be seen as shooting ourselves in the foot, but really the chances of finding a tennant wanting to move in the next two weeks are slim to non-existant (I won't go into the reasons here).
The LA has a reputation for being very uncoperative about returning deposits, and it's not protected as the tennancy started in 2006. We're budgeting on the assumption that we won't be seeing it again.0 -
mmmmchocolate wrote: »The LA has a reputation for being very uncoperative about returning deposits, and it's not protected as the tennancy started in 2006. We're budgeting on the assumption that we won't be seeing it again.
It's for the LL to prove any deduction from your deposit.
If the deposit is not returned in a timely fashion send a letter before action, then start a money claim (i.e. sue).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards