Landlord wants to sell early in tennancy

GDB2222

rentergirl wrote: »

I think you can work this out: sit down with your landlord, and negotiate a written agreement: no viewings without prior appointment (been there with EA's turning up at 8am on Sat myself) and rent reduction. Fees/removal costs until you've found somewhere. No funny stuff with the deposit. It would be good to sort it amicably, and talk of legal situation is true and right, but try talking first?

This is so obviously sensible, and yet people ignored it and went off spouting court cases. It's often the way here, with people advocating the approach that causes most hassle all round.

murphybear5

Oh my, isn't this getting convoluted!!! As an experienced retired letting agent (ARLA Advanced Legal) I was told time and time again the wonderful phrase "statute over-rides contract" or put simply you can't sign away your rights.

The tenant has the right to enjoy the property without constant interruptions and the landlord has NO RIGHTS to insist on prospective viewers going round irrespective of what the contract says. However, as we live in the real world, the landlord and tenant need to get together and come up with an amicable solution. I would suggest the tenant allows reasonable access and the landlord offers a reduction of rent during the process. I have used this scenario on a number of occasions with great success. From what the OP says, properties are not selling well in their area so it is possible there will be few viewings anyway. Also, in my experience it can be very difficult for a tenanted property to sell unless to a prospective landlord, as the issue of vacant possession arises. Good luck, hope it gets resolved

:T:T:T

DVardysShadow

murphybear5 wrote: »

Oh my, isn't this getting convoluted!!! As an experienced retired letting agent (ARLA Advanced Legal) I was told time and time again the wonderful phrase "statute over-rides contract" or put simply you can't sign away your rights.

I think here the right to quiet enjoyment is common law, so this is not a question of statute but of common law over contract

roy_c

Sod that, that is really unfair and I would be really tempted to play unfair back and change the locks.

dancingfairy

Hi Moot. As far as I can see it's actually pretty simple. You want viewings on a Saturday or an evening? or once a month? and a rent reduction or no viweings at all? It's your house while you are paying the rent.
The landlday cannot just get you out (unless you have a break clause) so it's up to negotiate what you want. The landlady will just have to go with what ever you offer or wait until the end of your tenancy.
If you do agree to certain viewings you can make it quite clear in writing the terms of these viewings and that you wish to be present and that you will take any other visits as unauthorised and will file a complaint with the relevant authorities (I'm someone can help with the relevant wording if necessary).
Best of Luck
df

N79

jjlandlord wrote: »

Thanks for this very informative post.
The question I have regarding the above is why would the LL's right of access necessarily go against T's right to quiet enjoyment?

In my view it does not automatically go against the T's right to quiet enjoyment (especially when access occurs when a T is not present) but can do (and is likely to if the T makes a fuss). Sorry if this was not clear.

Lord Millet summed it up as below in Southwark vs Mills (the landmark recent case for the right of quiet enjoyment and, had the Tenants won, could well have created Britain's biggest housing crisis ever), with my editing / bolding and my comments in brackets and italics.

" The covenant for quiet enjoyment is one of the covenants of title formerly found in a conveyance of land, and the only such covenant found in a lease of land. It has long been understood that the word "quiet" in such a covenant does not refer to the absence of noise. It means without interference. The covenant for quiet enjoyment was originally regarded as a covenant to secure title or possession...... But its scope was extended to cover any substantial interference with the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the land.... (this was the critical Sanderson v Berwick Upon Tweed Co-orporation case)"

He continues:

"Accordingly, I agree with the tenants that the covenant for quiet enjoyment is broken if the landlord or someone claiming under him does anything that substantially interferes with the tenant's title to or possession of the demised premises or with his ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the demised premises. The interference need not be direct or physical. Nor, in my opinion, is it a necessary precondition of liability on the covenant that the acts alleged to constitute the breach would support an action in nuisance."

So the actions of the LL do not have to be a nuisance to be a breach of quiet enjoyment. It is quite easy to make a case that the LL visiting a property interferes with some possible T actions. At a basic level, a T is unlikely to take a bath while the LL is inspecting the bathroom and on the views in Southwark this is clearly a potential breach of the covenant (depending on whether a court views it as substantial).

As I stated above, whether each LL visit is an actual breach will depend on the exact facts of each visit, whether the T's ordinary enjoyment was interfered with and the proportionality of the LL's actions.

The two rights (quiet enjoyment and access) can happily co-exist and do so in the vast majority of tenancies. They can also clash. So the right to access does not (in my view) necessarily and automatically go against the T's right to quiet enjoyment, but it has the potential to do so.

Judith_W

I have seen places in a similar situation where they have taken extensive photos and floor plan etc and then state limited viewings due to being tenanted. You could perhaps offer Staturday afternoons only if you are happy to be out, there would be an EA. If you want to be in, then maybe Sat from 4-6 or something? I've heard viewings are rarely in the week though I guess it might be different if it is an investment.

Moot

Well, I am about to write my reply to the landlord and having thought about what to do the line I am going to follow is that we would be uncomfortable with viewings whilst we were out (we have had problems with this at a previous property).

Also we work from 8.30am till around 6pm all week and have a small child which rules out any viewings during the week. This also means that our weekends are sacred for us, thus I don't want to waste them hanging around at home for viewings.

So I am inclined to say no full-stop to the idea. I also don't really want an estate agent ringing me up at work asking for times, etc.

I must say I can't really understand the LL stance on this. They must know that no private buyers will be able to buy the house as we are there. Also it's not really a buy to let property as far as I can see. The price is quite high, but rental yields are mediocre at best.

We were aware the LL wanted to sell when we moved in, which was not a problem as the LL stated she was going to wait till spring 2013 and then put it up for sale. The possibility of an extra 6 months lease after the current one expires was discussed, hence why this sudden plan to sell has come from left-field and surprised us.

Anyway we shall she what her response is.

BitterAndTwisted

Do not explain why you are reluctant to allow viewings or your time-schedules. This could encourage them to think that they can pop in when you are not there. Estate agents and lettings agents are especially prone to this, especially estate agents as you're not the fee-earning machine for them: getting a buyer asap is.

Your landlady is a fool. Please change the barrels of the locks before you send your letter or you could come home and find someone has been in there while you're out. I can almost guarantee it.

G_M

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Do not explain why you are reluctant to allow viewings or your time-schedules. This could encourage them to think that they can pop in when you are not there. Estate agents and lettings agents are especially prone to this, especially estate agents as you're not the fee-earning machine for them: getting a buyer asap is.

Your landlady is a fool. Please change the barrels of the locks before you send your letter or you could come home and find someone has been in there while you're out. I can almost guarantee it.

I was going to just 'thank' bitter for this post to indicate my approval. But that's not enough.

Please change the barrels of the locks before you send your letter or you could come home and find someone has been in there while you're out. I can almost guarantee it