Agent demanding access

thesaint

rpc wrote: »

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

Any contract term could be described as that, which is why I asked what it said, not if they had one.

:money:

People saying "It doesn't matter", are talking out the back of their necks, so you should be addressing/quoting them, not the person who has not stated anything incorrect, and knows what they are talking about.

G_M

When people say "it doesn't matter" in connection with the wording of a clause relating to access (for viewings etc) I suspect they do not mean it doesn't matter legally, they mean it doesn't matter in practice.

Yes, such a clause may or may not be legally enforceable, depending on the wording, the circumstances, even the judge on the day.

But as rpc says, the only way to find out whether the tenant's common law (not statute) right to Quiet Enjoyment would or would not trump the LL's right to access is to go to court. Which takes time and money.

In a situation like here, where the T is already packing, the T will be long-gone before the judge rules, and the LL will already be in.

Thus "it doesn't matter" what the tenancy agreement says.

Yorkie1

19lottie82 wrote: »

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

Quiet enjoyment is a common law matter, not statutory.