Landlord frequently turning up unannounced.....

GDB2222

marliepanda wrote: »

100% agree with what you say. But, if you were going in and snooping, or threatening to do so, can you not see why people would not trust you and change the locks? And would you deny that they were right to do that?

Oh yes, I agree. I would change the locks myself in those circumstances. It's got to be mutual respect, ie I respect the tenant's privacy and the tenant respects my concerns about getting in in an emergency.

Alibat

At the risk of sounding both flippant and ignorant how would/does anyone other than the T know the LL's phone number to call in an emergency? Am I missing something? Do LL's routinely go round giving their number out to near neighbours in case of emergency?

<sarcasm on> Do the emergency services have a master list and wait until the LL arrives with keys if there is a gas leak? Should I go round to all my neighbours and leave them my number in case there's a problem with my house while I've nipped up the shops? <sarcasm off>

I don't know which houses are owner occupied and which are rented on my street, and it isn't any of my business either. If a LL knocked on my door and wanted to leave their number I would be very unimpressed and feel like I was being asked to in some degree to spy on my neighbours. I wonder how the OP's neighbours feel about the position they've been put in? But unfortunately the LL has soured the relationship between them and the OP before the OP got to know them properly so I don't suppose the OP will ever find out now.

OP, for what my opinion is worth, I would change the locks asap. I know what it's like to not feel safe, comfortable and secure in my own home Rightly or wrongly in my mind my own security (mental and physical) comes before the LL's wishes, especially as if they followed the rules they should never find out that I'd done it anyway.

thegirlintheattic

GDB2222 wrote: »

Last Tuesday, I was notified of a leak coming from one of my flats. For various reasons I could not get hold of the tenant for over 24 hours, so the leak continued for that period. Fortunately, it was a very, very minor leak, and the cost will be picked up the insurers. It would have been quite inappropriate to break the door down - last one cost over £500 to replace.

The tenant was not liable for this leak, but in other circumstances she might have been and could have had a bill for £000's from the downstairs flat.

Made my point for me. If it could be left for 24 hours it was not an emergency.

You didn't go in so that shows you are a reasonable LL but many are not, and having access for an emergency does not mean a tenant cannot change the locks .

In the OPs case, I don't think anyone should be trying to persuade her not to change the locks as it gives her and her family peace of mind.

ViolaLass

GDB2222 wrote: »

The tenant was not liable for this leak, but in other circumstances she might have been and could have had a bill for £000's from the downstairs flat.

Just as she would if she had owned the flat. If she is the one who would have to pay the bill, shouldn't she have the choice about who can enter her flat without her knowledge/permission?

GDB2222

ViolaLass wrote: »

Just as she would if she had owned the flat. If she is the one who would have to pay the bill, shouldn't she have the choice about who can enter her flat without her knowledge/permission?

And as I am the payer of last resort if the tenant skips it, shouldn't I have the right to mitigate my loss? You can argue about the legal niceties, but it's perfectly obvious what the practical solution is. Oh, and by the way, I have no objection to a tenant changing the locks if they are worried about previous tenants etc - provided they give me a key.

marliepanda

GDB2222 wrote: »

And as I am the payer of last resort if the tenant skips it, shouldn't I have the right to mitigate my loss? You can argue about the legal niceties, but it's perfectly obvious what the practical solution is. Oh, and by the way, I have no objection to a tenant changing the locks if they are worried about previous tenants etc - provided they give me a key.

I think we are all arguing the same point here.

I have rented for 6 years and never once felt the need to change the locks until one week ago, when I became aware that they intended to enter without my permission.

You are right. With a fair, respectful, and decent landlord the locks dont need to be changed, as there is trust. That of course helps if there IS an emergency.

But if a landlord is coming round without permission, then clearly the respect and trust is gone from this business relationship. In these circumstances changing the locks is a sensible course of action. The LL's inability to mitigate his losses has arisen through his own disrespectful and potentially unlawful actions.

And I think we're all on the same page with that? Mostly?

ruggedtoast

GDB2222 wrote: »

There's an amazing amount of resentment about paying rent. People are happy to pay finance on say a new car. They don't resent the payments to the car finance company, but renting a property seems to be so emotional. Consequently, LLs can do no good round here.

I once used that very example as to why renting is so unsatisfactory in the UK.

If leasing a car were like renting a house you wouldn't be able to sit in it and make a journey without asking for permission from the owner. You'd have to get permission to put shopping in the boot, permission to have a passenger in the back, permission to change the radio station.

You'd also have to contend with the knowledge that they might just evict you from it while you're doing 70 on the motorway; if it weren't sitting broken in the driveway because they ignored all your pleas to fix it.

And then they come and stare in your windows whenever they pleased and tell you how messy you are.

I think thats the kind of car finance I would start to resent pretty fast.

blossomhill_2

OP
Has the landlord actually ever told you that this creep will be acting on their behalf?

Is there any chance that it is only him who has said he is, and that in fact he is just a pervert who has everyone convinced?

I repeat my advice to speak to the local police - he may already be known to them for similar

I am very concerned that it is already affecting your behaviour as you are considering blinds etc and feel the need to justify how you keep house, which is no-one business but your own

I also wondering, as you have a shop nearby, if he is able to tell when you are occupied and your daughter might be alone

[as an aside, and thinking laterally, as your daughter is 16, I wonder if he would need a CRB check for "working" with children if the LL is casual about his role, as she is quite entitled to be alone on the premesis]

cwcw

GDB2222 wrote: »

And as I am the payer of last resort if the tenant skips it, shouldn't I have the right to mitigate my loss? You can argue about the legal niceties, but it's perfectly obvious what the practical solution is. Oh, and by the way, I have no objection to a tenant changing the locks if they are worried about previous tenants etc - provided they give me a key.

If the tenant "skips it" you should pursue them through the correct legal channels, not insist on having free access to their home "just in case".

Do mortgage lenders all get a copy of the keys for properties they lend against? After all, the mortgagee's property may smell a bit gassy while they're out one day and the mortgage advisor happens to be passing by. Surely they should have a key just in case the mortgagee does so much damage they decide to "skip it"?

GDB2222

cwcw wrote: »

If the tenant "skips it" you should pursue them through the correct legal channels, not insist on having free access to their home "just in case".

Do mortgage lenders all get a copy of the keys for properties they lend against? After all, the mortgagee's property may smell a bit gassy while they're out one day and the mortgage advisor happens to be passing by. Surely they should have a key just in case the mortgagee does so much damage they decide to "skip it"?

Mortgage lenders insist on their borrowers taking out insurance at the borrower's expense.

The fact is that the rental property belongs to the landlord, and he has a right of entry for repairs. To suggest that that is unreasonable is just downright silly.