Viewing problems of rented flat

MasterPJ

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Both parties have legal rights and obligations. The tenant's right to quiet enjoyment does not automatically over-ride a landlord's right of access. If you think it does please find the precise legislation to confirm it and post a link to it or your opinion is worthless here..

I think the position has been made clear enough by G_M

There is an implied term in tenancy agreements under the Rent Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1988 that the tenant will let the landlord have access to the property, and all reasonable facilities, to carry out repairs which he or she is entitled to do.

In the case of tenancies where the landlord is responsible for repairs, he or she or an agent authorised by him or her in writing may, at reasonable times of the day, enter the property to inspect its condition and state of repair. He or she must give the tenant 24 hours notice in writing before he or she carries out such an inspection. If a regulated tenant will not give his or her consent for work to be carried out for which the landlord has a local authority grant, then the landlord may apply to the court for an order to enter and carry out the works. An order can be made subject to conditions about the time at which the work is carried out and about alternative accommodation arrangements.

You rent the property for a set time - it is yours untill that time end. You wouldn't rent a car and expect them in the last day to come and use it whenever they wanted. 'Repairs' and 'Emergency' are the only two reasons that you 'must' allow entry, but still if you are reasonable in this regard you are fine. Repairs at 2am would for example not be reasonable, but if you both agree on this then it because a 'mutual agreement' that would allow it.

G_M

MasterPJ wrote: »

It's a breach of quiet enjoyment.

---

Quiet Enjoyment

What is it?

This is not about noisy neighbours, nor specifically about noise of any sort. It is all to do with being allowed to use the property you have rented without the landlord interrupting that use.

I do not deny the tenants right to 'quiet enjoyment'. But the right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute.

The landlord also has rights, one of which is access, either implied or express within the contract, for various reasons eg repairs, inspections, viewings etc.

As I said, BOTH sides have rights.

OP - In order to strengthen your right to quiet enjoyment (and incidentally lay the foundations for a harrassment claim which is criminal Protection from Eviction Act 1977 ) put your objections /conditions in writing, in the appropriate way.

MasterPJ

G_M wrote: »

I do not deny the tenants right to 'quiet enjoyment'. But the right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute.

The landlord also has rights, one of which is access, either implied or express within the contract, for various reasons eg repairs, inspections, viewings etc.

As I said, BOTH sides have rights.

OP - In order to strengthen your right to quiet enjoyment (and incidentally lay the foundations for a harrassment claim which is criminal Protection from Eviction Act 1977 ) put your objections /conditions in writing, in the appropriate way.

I completely agree; be reasonable and always offer a solution. If your not reasonable then you are asking for trouble and if you do not offer a solution then your obviously not willing to negotiate and that speaks more to the individual character, which is when the court room is needed.

In this case, of the OP; what is reasonable to them is not what is going to be reasonable to the agency.

marliepanda

MasterPJ wrote: »

I completely agree; be reasonable and always offer a solution. If your not reasonable then you are asking for trouble and if you do not offer a solution then your obviously not willing to negotiate and that speaks more to the individual character, which is when the court room is needed.

In this case, of the OP; what is reasonable to them is not what is going to be reasonable to the agency.

The OP seems to only want to deny access when they have been on a night shift, doesn't seem like it should be a problem for the agency, as they have only mentioned 4 next week.

ViolaLass

The LL does not have the right to access for viewings if the tenant does not want it. Repairs/emergencies yes, viewings no.

dodger1

missile wrote: »

You do not have to permit viewings. As you do not need a reference, I would suggest you refuse any and all access until your lease terminates and you return the key.

And that doesn't help future tenants in any way because if the LL loses a months rental then he increases the rent to allow for the shortfall. It's all down to sensible negotiation, if that doesn't work then fair enough go down the refusal route.

My experiences with LAs in the past however have been very good and they normally are fine with coming to an agreement over viewing times. Also as a tenant I prefer to view a property as furnished which gives me a good idea how my stuff will fit in.

ViolaLass

dodger1 wrote: »

And that doesn't help future tenants in any way because if the LL loses a months rental then he increases the rent to allow for the shortfall. It's all down to sensible negotiation, if that doesn't work then fair enough go down the refusal route.

Rent will be based on what the market will pay, not whether the previous tenant was annoying.

tbs624

....and experienced LLs already factor in an amount to cover potential voids.

tbs624

MasterPJ wrote: »

I completely agree; be reasonable and always offer a solution. If your not reasonable then you are asking for trouble and if you do not offer a solution then your obviously not willing to negotiate and that speaks more to the individual character, which is when the court room is needed.

In this case, of the OP; what is reasonable to them is not what is going to be reasonable to the agency.

The OP is being perfectly reasonable - his job requires him to work nightshifts from time to time and he needs to therefore sleep during the day.

He has not indicated that he wants to refuse all viewings, merely that he needs there to be a measure of mutual convenience.

It is not merely a case of an LA giving a T notice of viewings - he needs the T's consent or to pursue a court order for access. T can insist on being present and can show compromise by offering alternative times/dates.

A LL/LA who pushes a T over viewings access is likely to find a property in less than marketable condition if the T feels pressured. May even be a leaflet or two left lying around, on how to deal with damp, membership leaflet from neighbours from hell group, a mousetrap and so on. Kippers and cabbage cooked immediately prior to viewing.......

lmille38

Thank you all for your replies. I am not stating that they cannot let people view the property, I am only enquiring if I can stipulate when they let people view the property.

I will be putting my concerns in writing (letter) to the LA and will also send them an e-mail to inform them immediately just in case they have arranged any viewings already.

Thanks again for all your replies, the information you have provided has been excellent.