Inconsiderate landlord

rentergirl

Landlords always think they can just walk right in. A friend's landlord calls to say he'll arrive on a stated day, but just lets himself in. The reason is the usual one: he used to live there himself, and in his own head, it's still his home. Even non- former occupiers find it hard to understand that tenants pay for a form of limited sole occupation, and that they can't just waltz in.

untranslatable

Hi pop,

thank you for your detailed explanation.

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

Do you have a source for this?

"... And then I would have tarred and feathered him and run him naked through town ..."

Yesss!!! This is exactly what I felt like yesterday morning when I stood there in my pijamas and this idiot behaved as if he was at home!

@rentergirl: "... find it hard to understand that tenants pay for a form of limited sole occupation, and that they can't just waltz in ..."

In this country, yes. They shouldn't try this in Germany where tenants enjoy much more legal protection. It's no wonder that the British are so obsessed with "getting on the property ladder".

*grumble* Good old Germany, I'm coming ...

princeofpounds

They shouldn't try this in Germany where tenants enjoy much more legal protection.

Yep, the german model is very different. There are advantages to the British model too however. You kind of have to understand how ridiculous our previous tenancy laws were to get how we ended up with what we have now.

Do you have a source for this?

Off the top of my head no - there won't be an explicit law for it as why should someone need legislative permission to enter an area which they own and has not been leased out to anyone else?

But a quick google got this institutional reference from a student's union (who would be on the side of tenants generally, and who get legal advice over housing matters) so you know I'm at least not making it up. If I have a bit of time later I'll try and find something more formal.

http://www.su.nottingham.ac.uk/helpadvice/housing/contracts/

dodger1

Why was the LL checking the shower? Had somebody complained about it?

untranslatable

I didn't think that you made it up; I was just too lazy to google it myself.

Thanks a lot!

Googlies_2

princeofpounds wrote: »

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.

These points are incorrect as rent is apportionable if its paid in arrears.

princeofpounds

These points are incorrect as rent is apportionable if its paid in arrears

A quick google and it would seem that you are right. However, I've never come across a residential letting that was paid in arrears (I know they do exist, particularly for housing benefit - perhaps the OP has one of these tenancies). So whilst the finer legal point might not have been bang-on, the general implication still applies in most instances.

Full info for people who appreciate explantions rather than glib assertions:

http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175:apportionment-of-rent&catid=32:property-disputes&Itemid=537

A particularly relevant extract:

In addition, where a lease is surrendered between rent days, the tenant is not entitled to recover any part of an instalment of rent payable in advance and paid before the surrender unless there is clear agreement to that effect (William Hill (Football) v Willen Key and Hardware (1964)).

rentergirl

Germany is always held up as the ideal for tenants. Tenants have more rights, but notice periods are always at least 3 months. And tenants can paint and decorate, and since they stay for years often do, but must put the place back to its original state when they move. There are also fearsome house committees, who decide about rules etc.

untranslatable

Fearsome house committees? I have never heard about them - what are they?