Can the lettings management company do this?

elsietanner71

Sorry, yes I did read all the previous advice. It's just the fact that they seem so confident they can do what they like that phased me. And their contract does back them up, though I take on board the fact it may not be legally enforceable.

Ive offered 3 afternoons a week including one at weekend but they are still pushing for 'anytime with 24 hr notice.' I may just refuse altogether, sod the deposit.

elsietanner71

jjlandlord wrote: »

A clause stating that T agrees to visits at reasonable time and with reasonable notice does not breach T's right to quiet enjoyment.
At the same time, an agent/landlord would be wise not to enter the property when T has expressly said that they could not.

I think this is the crux of it: what does reasonable mean? I don't think one or two viewings a day every day except Sunday is reasonable. I think offering 3 afternoons a week is sufficient, plenty in fact.

FTBFun

elsietanner71 wrote: »

Sorry, yes I did read all the previous advice. It's just the fact that they seem so confident they can do what they like that phased me. And their contract does back them up, though I take on board the fact it may not be legally enforceable.

Ive offered 3 afternoons a week including one at weekend but they are still pushing for 'anytime with 24 hr notice.' I may just refuse altogether, sod the deposit.

They cannot take any deductions from your deposit simply for refusing viewings - although they may take a stricter line in on disputing other deductions etc. Your deposit is protected isn't it?

jjlandlord

FTBFun wrote: »

They cannot take any deductions from your deposit simply for refusing viewings

Indeed, the only thing they could do is to claim compensation for losses incurred as a result of the breach of contract.
So basically as long as you reasonably allow viewings (and I think you did) you should be fine.

princeofpounds

You do not have to let anyone into your house, no matter what it says in the contract. The term is clearly unenforceable in the way they wish to apply it because it violates your right to quiet enjoyment.

The worst thing the agent can legally do is refuse to give you a reference (there is never an obligation) or become very pernickety about damage deductions at the end of the tenancy. Anything else is bluster.

Even if they were to sue for compensation, they would be highly unlikely to succeed. They would have to quantify and demonstrate a loss. Good luck on that when the existence of any willing future tenants is entirely a counterfactual situation.

They also would have to demonstrate that they clause is fairly enforceable as a consumer contract, which it is certainly not as written. The standard test of fairness is that the clause could never be used to cause a significant imbalance between consumer and vendor, even if it is not intended to be practised in an unfair manner. Permanent right of entry for viewings at any time is most certainly a significant imbalance (1am viewings because your mate down the pub wanted to know what it looked like inside, for example!).

The clause might be enforceable if viewings were permitted at times reasonable to the occupant, but a) you have been reasonable and b) you would only need to come up with an reasonable excuse to refuse viewings to defend against it (maybe you have a cold).

FTBFun

jjlandlord wrote: »

Indeed, the only thing they could do is to claim compensation for losses incurred as a result of the breach of contract.
So basically as long as you reasonably allow viewings (and I think you did) you should be fine.

I'd be surprised if the TDS (or whomever) would an allow a deduction from a deposit if the tenant had refused viewings full stop. How would you quantify that for starters?

jjlandlord

FTBFun wrote: »

I'd be surprised if the TDS (or whomever) would an allow a deduction from a deposit if the tenant had refused viewings full stop. How would you quantify that for starters?

Not so sure because a blanket refusal when the agreement provides for it would not only be a breach, it would seem rather unreasonable as well.
As a tenant I would not want to be sued for a month rent worth of compensation because I decided to refuse all viewings (which inevitably causes a loss of rent to the landlord since it creates a vacant period).

Yorkie1

But as a T you have no legal duty to give notice to your LL before the end of a fixed period - which is the situation here. So the LL would inevitably have a void period then with no recourse.

The T here has gone way beyond what is legally required by way of notice and the LL / LA is now taking the mickey.

OP, it is entirely up to you but in your position I would follow all of the advice given. Ignore their bluster / aggression. They are legally wrong. Put what you are or are not prepared to agree to viewings-wise in writing as a matter of urgency and refer to the phrase 'quiet enjoyment' as grounds for refusing whatever you are refusing. If you want to be present then put that in writing too (are you bothered about them being in your home without your presence?).

If you want to be present, and think they will come anyway then follow the advice about changing the lock of the barrel and change it back at the end.

Be prepared for them to argue over everything at deposit return - make sure you clean thoroughly and take lots of photos of everything.

Is there a dual-signed inventory?

jjlandlord

Yorkie1 wrote: »

But as a T you have no legal duty to give notice to your LL before the end of a fixed period.

There's no legal requirement to give notice in order to end the fixed term tenancy, yes.
Does that implies that there cannot be a contractual obligation to inform the landlord in advance, I do not know (and I don't know whether such a clause exists in OP's agreement).

In any case, certainly here T did inform his LL and he does have a clause that grants permission for viewings.

There's a long but very interesting discussion on these access issues on LLZ:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?26589-L-s-right-of-access-for-inspection-or-viewing

Excerpt from a distinguished member:
"...my aim was to show that statements such as: "A tenant can refuse his landlord access even if the tenancy agreement says he can have access" has no basis in law. Whilst it is a statement that a landlord is wise to assume is true, it is not wise for a tenant to rely on it being true."

"There is no rule of law that says that a landlord may not exercise any right of entry he reserves. A tenant must of course not be harassed. Apart from that he has a right to quiet enjoyment, but that right needs to be read as if it were qualified by any right reserved that allows the landlord to enter, so long as he behaves reasonably. It is not easy to say what is reasonable. Since the exercise of the right is not dependent upon a court saying it can be exercised there must be circumstances, apart from a case of genuine emergency, where it is not unreasonable for a landlord to enter without consent and even where consent is refused, but it is a brave landlord who thinks he knows what the circumstances are."

So again, imo:
It is unwise for a tenant to refuse all viewings if his tenancy agreement states that he must.
It is unwise for a landlord to enter the property if the tenant has explicitely refused access.
It is wise for both sides to behave reasonably.

tbs624

jjlandlord wrote: »

They don't need to give a bad reference, they can just refuse to give any reference (which will be understood as meaning 'bad' by the landlord/agency seeking it).

Not by all LLs.Some are capable of recognising that "games" get played with references. Some LLs of Ts whose behaviour has been less than good will give them a fairly shiny reference because they themselves want rid. It's a case of taking in the whole picture.

jjlandlord wrote: »

A clause stating that T agrees to visits at reasonable time and with reasonable notice does not breach T's right to quiet enjoyment.

I would argue that a T offering alternative dates and times is a reasonable compromise and is unlikely to result in any loss to the LA/LL

jjlandlord wrote: »

At the same time, an agent/landlord would be wise not to enter the property when T has expressly said that they could not.

Exactly. IMO OP has offered the LA some viewing slots and LA would do well to accept. OP should write to confirm that she is unable to provide access on x dates, and does not consent to viewings in her absence, but is willing to be reasonable and offer whatever her alternative available times and dates are.