Inspections and photos every 12 weeks?

jjlandlord

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You are repeating yourself, and you're still wrong.

...

I think it's pretty simple to understand but you should probably gain a better understanding of it considering your username.

I love when people who cannot back their claims with actual arguments revert to lowly ad hominem attacks.

tbs624 has provided a link to a statute re. entry for viewings. I shall add s.16 of Housing Act 1988:

It shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy that the tenant shall afford to the landlord access to the dwelling-house let on the tenancy and all reasonable facilities for executing therein any repairs which the landlord is entitled to execute.

In addition, I would again repeat that (as per very informative thread on LLS by legal expert): Nothing in Law says that contractual clause re. entry are not valid.
Certainly, quiet enjoyment does not 'trump' such (reasonable) clauses.

In any case, here OP has acted reasonably, so now that agent has not, she has ground to restrict access.

MissMoneypenny

jjlandlord wrote: »

I love when people who cannot back their claims with actual arguments revert to lowly ad hominem attacks.

tbs624 has provided a link to a statute re. entry for viewings. I shall add s.16 of Housing Act 1988:
In addition, I would again repeat that (as per very informative thread on LLS by legal expert): Nothing in Law says that contractual clause re. entry are not valid.
Certainly, quiet enjoyment does not 'trump' such (reasonable) clauses.

In any case, here OP has acted reasonably, so now that agent has not, she has ground to restrict access.

As tbs has pointed out, the LL would need to be granted a court order to enforce that. However, if the tenant was injured as a result of repairs that they
refused to let the landlord in to repair, then the tenant would have little chance of a successful claim in court against the landlord, for injuries.

The letting agent needs to be reminded that the inspections are to check the state of the repairs and every 12 weeks is too often. Personally., I would let the LL go to court for an order. As tbs said, the pictures should only be of any repairs that need attending to. I agree with clutton, change the locks.

If he pushed his way past you while you were in a state of undress and you didn't give him permission to enter at that time, then that is harrassment and needs to be reported to the local council's private lettings, for a warning letter to be sent to the agent. Councils can and do prosecute bad letting agents and landlords.

As they should have shown you the gas safety certificate before you rented the property, I would give the landlord a deadline to produce this of 10 days; do it in writing. 5k fine or/and 6 months in jail of they haven't got a valid gas safety certificate.

Lastly, find another property and......have you checked to see they have consent to let?

jjlandlord

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

As tbs has pointed out, the LL would need to be granted a court order to enforce that.

Not necessarily, but that'd probably be safest.
But one should not overlook the other aspect: If T breaches access provisions in contract then T makes himself liable for being pursued for damages re. consequential losses.

clutton_2

a LL has not got right of entry into the property if the tenant says no... - irrespective of what it says in the tenancy agreement.

i went all through this a couple of years back.. i would have had to get a court injunction EVEN for admission for a landlord gas safety certificate. An injunction, could cost around £4,000.....

jjlandlord

Well if LL has a key and has a reasonable reason or is exercising a right of entry, there's not much T can do to prevent access while he is away.
Obviously that does not mean that it is necessarily wise for a LL to do that. And certainly LL cannot enter if T says no and is at the property.

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

a LL has not got right of entry into the property if the tenant says no... - irrespective of what it says in the tenancy agreement.

i went all through this a couple of years back.. i would have had to get a court injunction EVEN for admission for a landlord gas safety certificate. An injunction, could cost around £4,000.....

The fact that if a T refuses access for inspections then the LL will need to obtain a court order has already been made.

Any LL who needed to seek such an order would of course look to the T for a contribution towards costs and the T could expect unfortunately to be n the receiving end of a retaliatory eviction.

Clutton does of course wax and wane on this one - some of us will remember her stout assertions that she would simply let herself/her engineer in if her GSC was at risk..........;)

G_M

Yes, landlord does have right of access.

And yes, tenant does have right to refuse to protect their quiet enjoyment.

It is not uncommon for the law to recognise conflicting rights.

Thus if there is a dispute with both sides insisting on these rights, a judge would need to balance them and decide. A landlord would be very foolhardy to attempt to enforce his right of entry against the explicit wishes of the tenant.

This is because harassment is now quite widely defined, and includes both criminal and civil penalties.
Various stautes have been quoted above. But not all:

"The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 was introduced to toughen the protection for tenants which were not considered satisfactory. This Act created an offence of harassment under S1 (3)."

There's a greater discussion on this issue of access here which makes interesting reading.

In this case, given the agents behavior, I would have no hesitation in advising the OP to:
1) record/complain about what happened in writing to the landlord (cc the agent) and
2) change the locks and
3) require a gas Certificate within 7 days

If the LL/agent later wishes to enforce their 'right of access' they can either
4) force their way in and risk criminal action for harassment or
5) apply to a court where both sides cam put their views forward - most courts would then probobly grant limited access under strict conditions (ie advance notice; access only at specific time for specific purpose)

Since the OP has 14 months left on the tenancy, security is pretty strong.

clutton_2

"""It is not uncommon for the law to recognise conflicting rights""" this is the bit that makes no sense at all to me ...

this topic always raises a huge amount of discussion on landlord forums, and how to work within the law and yet maintain a property, and abide by the law, which is inhabited by a difficult tenant.



i have only ever once in 12 years entered a property as an emergency, and my reasoning was that i would rather be in front of a judge explaining why apparently i was "harrassing" a tenant, than be in front of a judge explaining why she had burnt the house down and the kids were dead from CO poisioning. It was a calculated risk on my part, and legal action was not taken against me, although it was threatened. I would do the same thing again, given the same circumstances. I did have a wealth of independent evidence to prove the difficulties with the tenancy.

Even the HSE say a LL has to get a court injunction to do a landlords gas safety cert if a tenant refuses them entry. As i said earlier today these can cost £4k... and its that sort of expense, utterly un-necessary large expense, which makes some landlords dig their heels in.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

There's a greater discussion on this issue of access here which makes interesting reading.

I had pointed to that discussion several times. Thanks for doing it again.

G_M wrote: »

4) force their way in and risk criminal action for harassment or

It seems to me extremely far fetched to even consider this in case the landlord enter on reasonable grounds (inc. statutory rights) while T is out.
Trespassing perhaps, but then what? There's no damage or loss. Harassment, no chance unless this is a regular occurrence from LL.

Obviously a troublemaking tenant could try his luck, whereby causing grief to the landlord (hence why it's unwise for a landlord to do so), but imo, there's close to 0 chance of any action from T to succeed.

clutton wrote: »

i have only ever once in 12 years entered a property as an emergency, and my reasoning was that i would rather be in front of a judge explaining why apparently i was "harrassing" a tenant, than be in front of a judge explaining why she had burnt the house down and the kids were dead from CO poisioning.

On the specific topic of GSCs, I believe that if you as LL can show that you repeatedly tried to carry one out and that T repeatedly refused to grant access then you're covered (inc. re. fine for lack of GSC).
But again, I really think that if you have a key and you carry one out while T is away you don't risk anything apart from T potentially claiming that you broke/stole stuff (which trouble may not be worth the hassle).

G_M

clutton wrote: »

"""It is not uncommon for the law to recognise conflicting rights""" this is the bit that makes no sense at all to me ....

Not sure if you mean you don't believe this; or don't understand why it should be so; or agree it is so but should not be!

Freedom of expression versus incitement to racial hatred/slander etc is another obvious example.

Some of the stuff about the press at present is pertinant. NOTW did a whole lot of intrusive/illegal stuff, but without the press digging around we'd never have found out about the MP's expenses scandals; so... freedom of the press in the public interest Vs individual's privacy rights.

Judges frequently have to weigh up peoples individual rights against their obligations and/or other peoples rights.

Sorry - getting a bit carried away off-topic here!