Inconsiderate landlord

untranslatable

I have been renting a room in a shared house for the last six months. The landlord used to be okay - he didn't bother us and we didn't bother him.

Three weeks ago I got up on a Saturday morning, sleepily shuffled to the bathroom - and found my landlord standing there, inspecting the shower. I found this a bit strange and thought he could have told us in advance, but never mind.

Two days later he sent us a message telling us that he was going to replace the shower and do some work in the back yard the following day. - Right, no problem.

"Replacing the shower and doing some work in the back yard" turned out to take a whole week, and the place finally looked like a bomb site. After a week the workers disappeared, leaving a big mess behind. One of them turned up one day last week to pick up some painting material, but didn't do any work in our flat.

This morning, they were back. I was just in the right mood and gave him a piece of my mind: That I find his behaviour pretty inconsiderate; that I don't know about the legal situation in England, but in my country he wouldn't get away with this.
He was rather defensive and snapped back that he has no reason to apologise.

Since I am moving out in a few days it is not really worth the bother, nevertheless I would like to know if landlords in England really have the right to stomp in whenever they feel like doing so? Do they have the right to make a place more or less uninhabitable for over two weeks, no matter if it's rented out?

SJshah

Depends on the paperwork you signed. If you've signed something that indicates that the landlord can come in to check things without notice, he has the right to do so. If you haven't signed consent to anything like that, he should give you some period of notice (unless its an emergancy, ofcourse).

As for leaving the place inhabitable for a period of time - he should have really consulted with you beforehand and explained everything he is planning to do, how long it will take and what will be affected etc.. If you were unable to use the facilities which you were paying for you should be compensated accordingly IMO. However, I'm not sure about what is legally allowed, look through the rental contract to be sure.

I assume it all depends on the paperwrk you have signed.

untranslatable

Thanks for your input.

From my contract:

"18. Entry by the Landlord etc.

To permit the Landlord or the Landlord's Agents and all other persons authorised by them at all reasonable times by appointment (but at any time in case of emergeny) during the Tenancy to enter into and upon the Property for the purposes of carrying out and completing any structural or other necessary or property repairs to the property or for the purposes of examining the sate and interior of the property and of the furniture and effects."

"At all *reasonable* times *by appointment* are the interesting bits.

He didn't give us any prior notice on that Saturday two and a half weeks ago, and he didn't inform us that he was going to come today.

"Reasonable" times is open to interpretation. Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about an obligation to *complete* necessary work within a reasonable time.

Another thing is: my contract ends on the 18th, but I am moving out on the 14th and the new tenant is going to move in the following day, the 15th. So far he hasn't made any noises about refunding me for these three days for which I *and* the new tenant pay rent.

Nile

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere (please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to another board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com"]forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

Jack2012

Well then maybe i think you should try to find a lawyear to help you ... it seems like he is doing everything wrong according to your contract... He should talk with you at least some ours before starting this hole thing... taking in consideration the time for you to left the house, i think that he doesn't need to rufund you, this depends on the contract too... but he should give you at least one more day so you can take all of your things and organize yourself well

princeofpounds

Another thing is: my contract ends on the 18th, but I am moving out on the 14th and the new tenant is going to move in the following day, the 15th. So far he hasn't made any noises about refunding me for these three days for which I *and* the new tenant pay rent.

Rent is not a divisible item under law. If you stay for one day of a period (normally a month) then you are due to pay for the whole of a period.

A landlord is not allowed to charge rent from two tenants at once, but in this instance even if the tenancy terminates on the 14th as opposed to the 18th that doesn't change your liability. If you had a month and three days left the landlord would not be able to charge the remaining month.

Why is it this way? Although it sounds illogical it is not. Because otherwise you will end up with a situation where you could ask for a refund of 3 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes... time is infinitely divisible so a line must be drawn somewhere.

As for rights of entry, I have to go now but I'm sure someone will tackle that before I get back.

untranslatable

Thanks, p.o.p.. I don't want a refund of the rent for those last three days; I just thought I should know where I stand in case LL tries to withhold my deposit - at the moment I simply assume the worst of this guy.

So it is good to know that he is not allowed to charge rent from two tenants at once - that gives me a leverage if he balks.

dancingfairy

If you were renting privately a house or flat on a single contract then no,the landlord could not come and go as he/she pleased. They would be premitted acess in an emergency-ie gas leak, fire, water leak etc. Obviously they may want access at other times in order to enact repairs or to ensure you are keeping the property in good condition - in which case they have to give 24 hours notice in writing. On the other hand the tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property(which means no access for repairs etc). It is therefore best if both parties can agree a mutually convenient time for repairs etc.
As it sounds like you rent a house of multiple occupancy (ie you rent a room each) then I believe that the landlord can access shared parts - ie kitchen, bathroom etc but again notice and common courtesy would have been helpful from your landlord.
Unfortunately there is little you can really do now as you can't exactly quantify any losses (much less sue the landlord). You can try arguing for a partial rent reduction due to the loss of facilities but you are on the back foot really.
You can of course refuse access to any future landlord(s) in the case of emergencys and set this out clearly at the begining of the tenancy but then you run the risk of being seen as a troublesome tenant and/or not getting a property so it is probably best to try and sort things out amicably as you go along if possible.
df

dancingfairy

The landlord should have protected the deposit with one of the 3 schemes available. If there are any disagreements you can raise a dispute with the scheme. If he hasn't protected it then it is a bit late for now but in the end of any dispute with the deposit you would have to take him to court to get it back and it would obviously depend on what evidence each party has.
Best of Luck
df

untranslatable

@dancingfairy: My contract states clearly that the landlord has the right to enter the Property *by appointment* for carrying out repairs, *unless it's an emergency*.

It was not an emergency and there was no prior notification.

Now, what does the term "Property" comprise? I think that's the whole place, from the front door to the back door, including kitchen, bathrooms, living room and hallways.

It would be nice if somebody could enlighten me on this point.

Further, I don't want to squeeze any money out of him; I just want him to respect my privacy for the last three days I am here, and I want my deposit back.
Thankfully we don't do "references" and the like in my country, so I don't need to put up with his behaviour just to keep him sweet.

Edit: The deposit is protected under some local council scheme - I never read it. ;-)
Good to know though that there is some kind of protection - just in case.

Thanks a lot.

princeofpounds

The 'property' is the area 'demised' to you in the tenancy agreement. i.e. your room.

In a house where people are renting rooms, the landlord can enter the common areas at will.

In general, here is roughly how it is supposed to work when renting a whole property:

- the tenant has a right to 'quiet enjoyment'. That means that they can determine who enters their house and when.
- the landlord has a right to inspect, partially in order to fulfil their duty to repair fixtures, fittings and the fabric of the property.

- when those two rights clash, the tenant's right is superior, if for no other reason than the practical one that the tenant is allowed to change the lock barrels and deny the landlord access, whilst the landlord cannot do the same or will risk committing the crime of illegal eviction.
- the landlord can only unilaterally break into the property in case of a genuine emergency (fire, flood, gas etc.).
- otherwise, the landlord must go to court to obtain a court order for access. This, the tenant must respect. Of course, in reality if it gets this far for a regular assured shorthold tenancy, the landlord is normally looking at an order for possession of the property at the same time to terminate the tenancy.

- If things are not quite so oppositional, then what is supposed to happen is that the landlord is supposed to give 24 hours notice in writing to enter, and should only enter with permission.
- however, there is normally a clause in the tenancy that acts as a 'standing permission', meaning that realistically a tenant has to actively remove that permission to deny a landlord entry. Even though it is written into the contract, it is possible to do so because a court would typically treat blanket access rights as an unenforceable unfair term in consumer contracts, and even if it did accept the clause the landlord has to go to court anyway as they normally would, to enforce it.
- However, if a landlord doesn't give notice and/or doesn't have permission, but still enters, there is no criminal law against that. Tenants have no comeback against it unless they suffer loss or damage as a result (and can therefore sue in a civil case) or it is part of a course of conduct that amounts to criminal harrassment (and entry alone is not sufficient).

Of course this is all semi-legal mumbo jumbo, in reality it's a case of sensible negotiation. In your case, the landlord was not out of order to be doing work in the common areas, and in some sense you should be glad that he is maintaining the property. He was out of order in not being civil enough to notify people and in instructing his workmen to clear up properly. Your mistake was in attacking his right to access rather than his basic rudeness, which is much less defensible.

he has no reason to apologise

to which I would have said - "yes you do, you didn't have the common decency to notify us that you would be doing extensive works in the common areas, and you have left a huge mess which you failed to clean up. You wouldn't want to be treated in that way so you shouldn't be doing it to other people."

And then I would have tarred and feathered him and run him naked through town ;-)