landlord has key???

thesaint

RichyRich wrote:

Despite protestations to the contrary, deary65 is right. For the duration of a lease, the tenant has exclusive possession of the property. If the landlord enters without the tenant's permission, he is a trespasser. What the landlord "owns" is a reversion, which means that at the end of the lease the title to the land will revert to him, but during the term of the lease he does not have a right to enter at will. He can, however, enter to effect repairs if the parties so covenant. If a purported "lease" does not give exclusive possession to the tenant, it is not a lease. And since we're quoting sources, I'll be the first on the thread to actually quote some law and say per Lord Templeman in Street v. Mountford (1985), HL.

Who is disputing this?

prudryden

deary65 wrote:

If a stranger has a key to my home in theory they could enter at anytime. That would effect the state of my mind and breach my common law right to quit enjoyment. You cannot write the common law out in a contract.

Unfortunately, in real estate, contract law prevails over common law.

RichyRich

thesaint wrote:

Who is disputing this?

Kaminari, Catmeister and Roswell

deary65

RichyRich wrote:

Despite protestations to the contrary, deary65 is right. For the duration of a lease, the tenant has exclusive possession of the property. If the landlord enters without the tenant's permission, he is a trespasser. What the landlord "owns" is a reversion, which means that at the end of the lease the title to the land will revert to him, but during the term of the lease he does not have a right to enter at will. He can, however, enter to effect repairs if the parties so covenant. If a purported "lease" does not give exclusive possession to the tenant, it is not a lease. And since we're quoting sources, I'll be the first on the thread to actually quote some law and say per Lord Templeman in Street v. Mountford (1985), HL.

Your wasting your time quoting the law here, even if they read the judges words they would not understand them.

liz545

specs wrote:

The law does not require everyone to have a rent book.
The tenants can buy one and ask the landlord to fill it in, but he is under no obligation to do so.

Sorry, my bad. Just checked on the CAB website and this is only for people on weekly tenancies. In the OP's case it might make sense to have one, to avoid future disputes...

thesaint

RichyRich wrote:

Kaminari, Catmeister and Roswell

I have re-read the thread. You may have mis-read, Kaminari, Catmeister and Roswell all said that the Landlord owned the property after Dreary65 said that they don't(own the property).

Is that your position?

roswell

roswell wrote:

I have to agree with herd, its the landlords property not the tenants.

And i also agree it shouldnt be miss used

Sorry, But i only disputed the term "ownership of the property" As the tennant do not own the property.

Eg if a tile fell off the roof and hit a car it would not be the tenants responcability to pay damages as they do not own the property.

Eg, The tennants do not get taken to court for not paying the mortgage.

EG, the tennants are not listed on the deeds of the property.

And finaly, Why would you pay rent on something if you "Owned it"

Hence the property is not owned by the tennants, if it was there would be no need for land lords as tennants would have the right to sell the property that they "Own" ...

Further more if you own something you expect to have what ever you require to maintain owner ship eg A key to a house or a bank account number (eg chip and pin) to allow you to use your bank account.

I did not agree to miss use or contest the right to "Quit enjoyment"

hopingforahouse

Is there some kind of log book you use that all carers see that you can write down your concerns if you aren't going to be there for when the landlord comes? Can you maybe phone the landlord and ask him to wait till the copy of the cheque comes back from the bank? So they have proof - if the check is in the right name and for the right amount and has been cashed, then it becomes a police matter if the landlord says he hasn't recived it - it would be theft - possibly by a memeber of the landlords family (same name?).

RichyRich

roswell wrote:

Sorry, But i only disputed the term "ownership of the property" As the tennant do not own the property.

In that sense of "ownership", neither does the landlord. The landlord owns an estate in the land, known as the fee simple absolute in possession. Once the property is let, the tenant owns an estate in the land, known as a term of years absolute and the landlord's property right is renamed a reversion.

roswell wrote:

Eg if a tile fell off the roof and hit a car it would not be the tenants responcability to pay damages as they do not own the property.

That depends entirely on the covenants of the lease. If the reparing obligation for the roof fell on the tenant, it damn well would be the tenant's responsibility to pay damages to the owner of the car.

Eg, The tennants do not get taken to court for not paying the mortgage.

Only because, generally, the mortgage is in the name of the freeholder and secured on the freehold (fee simple). Take for example a property in Belgravia which I occupy on a 99 year lease (I wish!) for which a premium is paid. To secure the capital for payment of the premium, I mortgage my leasehold title. Are you seriously saying that if I did not pay the mortgage the bank would not take me to court? (Admittedly, if I didn't pay the mortgage, the bank could invoke its right of possession without going to court, but this is a technicality and normally a court order is obtained).

Final EG, the tennants are not listed on the deeds of the property.

That entirely depends on the length of the lease. From memory, LPA 1925 as amended by LRA 2002 states that a (legal) lease with a term of less than one year requires no formality at all, leases of less than three years need to made in writing, leases of less than seven years by deed and leases of seven years or more by deed and registered at the Land Registry. I am more than happy to be corrected on these dates and of the relevant legislation as I have had a drink and I don't have my statute book to hand.

So each of your arguments as to why the landlord "owns" the property hold no weight. I can understand why you would say what you say, due to the common application of the lease system, but a lease is a property right in its own right and the level of "ownership" experienced by the tenant is dependent almost solely on the covenants between him (or her) and the landlord.

Hence the property is not owned by the tennants, if it was there would be no need for land lords as tennants would have the right to sell the property that they "Own" ...

My old Land Law lecturer had a good explanation for this. I will quote him.

The fundamental difference between a freehold and a leasehold estate is that of time. A leasehold estate essentially gives the leaseholder the same rights of an equivalent freeholder to his land, however, whilst a freehold estate gives those rights indefinitely, a leaseholder enjoys those same rights only for "a slice of time"

Additionally, I will paraphrase from what I believe to be s. 1 Law of Property Act 1925, but again feel free to correct

"There shall be two legal estates in English Law.

1. The fee simple absolute in possession
2. A term of years absolute

Further more if you own something you expect to have what ever you require to maintain owner ship eg A key to a house or a bank account number (eg chip and pin) to allow you to use your bank account.

I believe I have demonstrated that ownership of the property is not contiguous with being the landlord of the property. The landlord owns the reversion not the property.

I did not agree to miss use or contest the right to "Quit enjoyment"

Impliedly, you did. You use the notion of "a PIN to use your bank account" - what do you need a key for other than to "use" the property?

Best wishes,
Rich

PS, for a firm understanding of Land Law, I can thoroughly recommend Modern Land Law by Martin Dixon. For a deeper analysis of Landlord and Tenant Law, may I recommend Landlord and Tenant Law by J Morgan?

EDIT USED TO ADD A "]" TO ONE OF THE TAGS I USED FOR A QUOTE WHICH WAS OMITTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE

prudryden

Here we go - the thread is descending into chaos and nonsense.

The fact remains. A tenant signs an agreement which states "that he is not to change the locks without the Landlords written permission". If the tenant has a good reason for changing the locks, I don't think a decent landlord would refuse him.

If a potential tenant does not agree with anything in the contract, he does not have to sign it and can look elsewhere. If he signs and then breaks that agreement, under contract law that is a breach of contract. A third party (county court judge) will make a decision using his discretion on repossession, unless it is under Ground 2 or 8 of Section 8 (Notice to terminate) which is not discretionary.

The fact that a LL has a key to the property does not constitute harassment UNLESS he uses that key for harassment.

If any potential tenant feels uncomfortable with that, then I, as a Landlord,
would certainly not want them to be uncomfortable. I want them to be happy tenants. I would suggest to them that they look for another place to rent as I don't feel comfortable changing my legal contracts.