Landlords let themselves into the house

cwcw

mchale wrote: »

What law would I be breaking??

Civil law - tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, possibly harassment too. As a landlord, you have no right to turn up unannounced and let yourself in, sorry about that!

The tenant does have the right to quiet enjoyment and to not be harassed in THEIR home. Any requests to visit THEIR home can be made in writing, but may be refused by the tenant. Anything in the Tenancy Agreement to try to work around this is null and void, as contractual rights are superseded by civil statutory rights. The landlord can only obtain access without prior consent in the event of emergency (I think I covered that one in my last post though).


DISCLAIMER: the above is not to be taken as legal advice, I am no solicitor.

cwcw

mchale wrote: »

What law would I be breaking??

Also, answer me this, mchale? Say I was your tenant, I changed the locks as soon as I moved in, then one day when you knew I was out at work (because you know every detail of my life yet I know nothing about you) you thought you'd take a sneaky peak at your new tenant's setup, to check nothing is amiss..... shock horror, your key doesn't work. Do you:

(a) 'Fess up to trying to break the law and let me know your thoughts on me changing the locks

(b) Try to spout some b/s about a fake gas leak you could "smell" whilst you happened to be passing

(c) Keep your nose out and leave me alone until the end of the tenancy

The problem with (a) and (b), S21 or not, is that you're letting me know as a tenant that you're a bad landlord, and you will lose me as a tenant even though I'm reliable, pay on time, and maintain your house and garden in a good state of repair. Why lose the dream tenant just because you want the ability to snoop? If there is an emergency and the door gets broken, its my deposit at stake, not yours.

Also, what kind of people are worried about safety and privacy? They fall into 2 categories - (1) Criminals with something to hide. (2) A personality type of which privacy/safety/security concerns would be symptomatic of someone who cares, someone who is more likely to look after their stuff and therefore your property too. I would suggest someone who didn't give any thought to how many strangers had free access to their home would perhaps be more likely to be unreliable and uncaring of the property. And since you know virtually everything about your tenant through the application process, you should be confident they fall into (2) and not (1). As a tenant on the other hand, my landlord is a stranger and could be a convicted criminal for all I know.

mchale

cwcw wrote: »

Civil law - tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, possibly harassment too. As a landlord, you have no right to turn up unannounced and let yourself in, sorry about that!

The tenant does have the right to quiet enjoyment and to not be harassed in THEIR home. Any requests to visit THEIR home can be made in writing, but may be refused by the tenant. Anything in the Tenancy Agreement to try to work around this is null and void, as contractual rights are superseded by civil statutory rights. The landlord can only obtain access without prior consent in the event of emergency (I think I covered that one in my last post though).


DISCLAIMER: the above is not to be taken as legal advice, I am no solicitor.

I think you will find the law on that is not quiet as clear cut as you think.

mchale

cwcw wrote: »

Also, answer me this, mchale? Say I was your tenant, I changed the locks as soon as I moved in, then one day when you knew I was out at work (because you know every detail of my life yet I know nothing about you) you thought you'd take a sneaky peak at your new tenant's setup, to check nothing is amiss..... shock horror, your key doesn't work. Do you:

(a) 'Fess up to trying to break the law and let me know your thoughts on me changing the locks

(b) Try to spout some b/s about a fake gas leak you could "smell" whilst you happened to be passing

(c) Keep your nose out and leave me alone until the end of the tenancy

The problem with (a) and (b), S21 or not, is that you're letting me know as a tenant that you're a bad landlord, and you will lose me as a tenant even though I'm reliable, pay on time, and maintain your house and garden in a good state of repair. Why lose the dream tenant just because you want the ability to snoop? If there is an emergency and the door gets broken, its my deposit at stake, not yours.

Also, what kind of people are worried about safety and privacy? They fall into 2 categories - (1) Criminals with something to hide. (2) A personality type of which privacy/safety/security concerns would be symptomatic of someone who cares, someone who is more likely to look after their stuff and therefore your property too. I would suggest someone who didn't give any thought to how many strangers had free access to their home would perhaps be more likely to be unreliable and uncaring of the property. And since you know virtually everything about your tenant through the application process, you should be confident they fall into (2) and not (1). As a tenant on the other hand, my landlord is a stranger and could be a convicted criminal for all I know.

I wouldn't know if you had changed the locks as i'm not really interested in your private life.

Strapped

mchale wrote: »

What law would I be breaking??

If you don't know, and you're a landlord I suggest you look it up - fast.

cwcw

mchale wrote: »

I wouldn't know if you had changed the locks as i'm not really interested in your private life.

So why would you be so bothered if a tenant changed their locks then? Earlier in the thread you were saying you'd serve them their S21 (presumably regardless of how reliable they were at paying their rent and keeping the property in good condition).

cwcw

mchale wrote: »

What law would I be breaking??

"

“Protection from Eviction Act 1977”
Section 1
Unlawful eviction and harassment
s.1(3A) (as was amended by the Housing Act 1988) which states:
"the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household."

mchale

You seemed to have missed this bit:

(3B)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question.

As i said early the law is not quiet as clear cut as you think.

BobQ

mchale wrote: »

No, I respect my tenants rights, but when you have had a tenant go away on holiday in the winter, leave no heating on and the pipe's freeze in a 1st flooor flat and you as a LL get a phone call from the tenant in the flat below who has come in from work and found her flat flooded, it's not nice.
And when can not contact the tenant (this happened many yrs ago, before mobiles) you go round, and you can not gain entry because the tenant has put a extra lock on the door maybe then you will see the other side.

You would never know the lock had been added unless you are the sort of landlord that breaches your tenants rights by trying to enter.

The scenario you paint is no different to a leaseholder going on holiday and this leak happening.

cwcw

mchale wrote: »

You seemed to have missed this bit:

(3B)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question.

As i said early the law is not quiet as clear cut as you think.

Yes, you try convincing a judge that "reasonable grounds" stretch to checking up on the property without notice for no reason at all. Good luck with that one.