Agent demanding access

neilj1984

My partner and I are moving out of our current flat on Saturday, we're in the process of packing. Our current agent has asked to do a viewing on Wednesday but this isn't good for us. They've said as they have given 24 hours access and have keys, they will let themselves in. Is this right? I thought we could refuse access.

RAS

You can refuse acces but I would change the ruddy locks if they intend letting themsleves in.

Barrels only cost about £5-10 and you replace the old ones when you leave and take the new ones to your new place.

SerialRenter

You are well within your rights to deny access. Although it would be best if you offered an alternative time that would suit you.

Usual suggestions for this issue recommend changing the locks, but from what you're saying it seems a bit late in the day for that to be economical. But hey, its an option.

My advice: Phone them up and say "can you do x time and date please instead".

If they do let themselves in when you've said no. Phone the police.

sandsni

No, they can't just let themselves in unless it's an emergency (fire, flood, you get the idea). Tell them (preferably in writing, although if the viewing is tomorrow they haven't given you much time to argue) that it doesn't suit, and offer an alternative day and time so you are not seen as being obstructive.

If there is any way you could have a friend or family member at home tomorrow, they could simply refuse access at the door. I'm sure the prospective tenants would be very interested to know their possible future LA is quite happy to let themselves in when no one is at home.

Apart from anything else, you're leaving on Saturday so I don't see why the LA couldn't just wait till next week.

thesaint

What does your tenancy agreement state about access for "viewings"?

19lottie82

thesaint wrote: »

What does your tenancy agreement state about access for "viewings"?

This doesn't matter one iota. A LA can write whatever they want in a contract, doesn't mean it's legal.

Basically, statue law (quiet enjoyment) over rules contract law every time.

neilj1984

Thanks for the responses. As we're moving out this weekend, they have agreed to have the viewing next week.

PasturesNew

If you want some jollity, you could always pop down the local charity shops and get a pile of cheap/shoddy/thin glasses etc ... and very carefully place them right behind the door when you go out....

BitterAndTwisted

I'm glad that they appear to have seen the light but reading this forum I would not accept that they will truly do it. I suspect they are pretending they won't access the property and will just come sailing in, believing that if they've given 24 hour's notice that you automatically have to accept it. Their 24 hours notice is a REQUEST for access, not a demand which you are compelled to accept.

I'd be acting on the premise that they are outright liars and would be taking steps to prevent access by changing the BARRELS of the locks regardless. You can take the new barrels with you when you leave. They will generally come in handy in future.

Tenants who don't change the locks when they move into a new property are taking a risk. We never know how many previous tenants may have kept copies or given a spare set to friends, neighbours or relatives.

thesaint

19lottie82 wrote: »

This doesn't matter one iota. A LA can write whatever they want in a contract, doesn't mean it's legal.

Basically, statue law (quiet enjoyment) over rules contract law every time.

Unless you are saying an access clause is inherently illegal, your point is invalid.
You also have the common misconception of what the right of quiet enjoyment is. It is rife, so don't be disheartened.

Apart from that, your post is correct.

rpc

thesaint wrote: »

Unless you are saying an access clause is inherently illegal, your point is invalid.

It isn't illegal - neither would be a clause obliging T to cook a roast for the LL every Sunday or wash my socks.

It is potentially unfair and therefore unenforceable. It also conflicts with the common law (and implied contractual) right to quiet enjoyment.

Thus, with two conflicting rights either the two parties must reach agreement or go to court. If, absent an agreement, a LL tried to force entry then they are probably breaking several criminal statutes and that is generally considered to be a bad idea.

Of course, with the costs of going to court and the time it takes, if a LL disagrees with the T then they are best to just evict even if they have to wait until a fixed term ends.