Quiet Enjoyment

thesaint

witchy1066 wrote: »

r
So from that, it’s clear that tenant’s are required to have 24hr notice before the landlord or agent can enter the premises. Moreover, the tenant must grant permission. The tenant’s right to live in quiet enjoyment is a statutory right. Failing to give tenants that right could lead to landlord prosecution for harassment.
The Exception to the rule

There is an exception to the rule, as always. Only under a situation that can be deemed as an “emergency” may the Landlord enter without permission. This will include situations like flooding or fire.

The landlord has to give 24 hours written notice to enter the property at a reasonable time of the day. The tenant does not need to grant permission, as the landlord has a statutory right of access.

Herbalus wrote: »

Does a tenant have a right to change the locks even if forbidden in the contract?

No, if the tenant agreed in the contract to not change the locks, then there is no right to do so.

The landlord is limited in what he can do about it though.

Guest101

thesaint wrote: »

Just write to them stating that you require 24 hours written notice before anyone can access your home, and that if it happens again, you will be changing the locks.

Do not mention "Quiet enjoyment", as it doesn't mean what you think it means, and they will just laugh. The same will go for threats of calling the police.

I think you're wrong on this.

Quiet enjoyment means just that, not to be inhibited from enjoying a hassle free life.

And the police would be interested if this was a break in.

Guest101

thesaint wrote: »

The landlord has to give 24 hours written notice to enter the property at a reasonable time of the day. The tenant does not need to grant permission, as the landlord has a statutory right of access.



No, if the tenant agreed in the contract to not change the locks, then there is no right to do so.

The landlord is limited in what he can do about it though.

Yes of course the tenant has to give permissoon for the LL to enter. What would you do if your bank/mortgage lender came round and demanded access to your home?!

Whilst the LL has right to access, he cannot do so without the tenants permission. (if that has been withdrawn, as it is implied to begin with)

thesaint

Guest101 wrote: »

I think you're wrong on this.

Quiet enjoyment means just that, not to be inhibited from enjoying a hassle free life.

And the police would be interested if this was a break in.

Yes, the police would be interested in it if it was a break in. They would also be interested in it if it were a murder, or suicide attempt.

Guest101 wrote: »

Yes of course the tenant has to give permissoon for the LL to enter. What would you do if your bank/mortgage lender came round and demanded access to your home?!

Does my lender have a statutory right of access?

Guest101 wrote: »

Whilst the LL has right to access, he cannot do so without the tenants permission. (if that has been withdrawn, as it is implied to begin with)

He has a statutory right of access that cannot be withdrawn by the tenant.
He also might have a contractual right of access, which also cannot be withdrawn by the tenant.

Guest101

thesaint wrote: »

Yes, the police would be interested in it if it was a break in. They would also be interested in it if it were a murder, or suicide attempt.



Does my lender have a statutory right of access?




He has a statutory right of access that cannot be withdrawn by the tenant.
He also might have a contractual right of access, which also cannot be withdrawn by the tenant.

That doesn't mean he can enter your home without your permission! It may be his property, but he has leased it to you, and therefore cannot unilaterally enter it. It's really simple, i don't know where you're struggling with this.

I_have_spoken

Sadly our useless MPs who agrees the laws allowed contradictory requirements to be included, imposing obligations on the LL which require access and rights for the tenant to decide on access.

G_M

Good grief! What has happened to this thread! What a lot of conflicticting, erroneous and/or irrelevant suggestions!

* where on earth did the mobile home legislation come from? (don't tell me 'Parliament'....). This is not a mobile home as far as we know.

* changing the locks may be prohibited by the contract (so would technically be a breach), but there is little a LL could do. Heb could obtain a court order to replace them. But where a LL has been blatantly ignoring the tenant's right to QE, the court may well decline such an order (unless the tenant was, for example, denying access for essential repairs/gas inspection...)

But as with most things, pragmatism, compromise and communication are far better solutions than law.

Thus a polite letter (and/or discussion) explaining why unattended access by LL/contractors is unsettling and unwanted, but at same time offering to facilitate access when it is needed.

thesaint

Guest101 wrote: »

That doesn't mean he can enter your home without your permission! It may be his property, but he has leased it to you, and therefore cannot unilaterally enter it. It's really simple, i don't know where you're struggling with this.

Who can't enter my home? My mortgage lender?
I asked you if they have a statutory right of access.

mrginge

Is this another pointless and misleading argument over tenants rights vs LLs rights?

The LL has a statutory right of access.
The tenant has a right of quiet enjoyment.
Contractual rights may also apply to either.

Either party can exercise their rights from the above sources. If the opposing party wishes to restrict these rights then they can do so and the only solution is through a judge.

Thus, saying you can't change the locks because it says so in the contract does not prevent the tenant from actually changing the locks.
Saying the LL can enter the property because of his statutory rights does not mean the tenant has to let him in when he's banging on the door.

It is misleading to suggest that one right overrules another. It is accurate to suggest that any action to restrict a parties rights may be deemed invalid, but only by a judge after a hearing, after an outlay of costs and with a likely penalty that is only to restore the rights to the wronged party.

cwcw

You have to be given notice in writing, usually 24 hours. Personally, I would change the locks, the only way they'd know is if they tried to get in while you were out again (or in a genuine emergency, e.g. house is on fire and the firefighters stand around waiting for the landlord to run along with his copy of the keys rather than breaking the door down).

We rented for 6 months in between sale and purchase. The second thing I did (after cleaning thoroughly, it was disgusting) was to change the locks to the front and back doors. I kept the old ones and swapped them back on the night before checkout.

Cost of 2 locks and 10 minutes effort: £20.

Knowing my landlord/letting agent/former tenant/gas man/nosey neighbour/former tenant's ex couldn't enter my house at any time night or day: priceless.