Landlord entered flat without permission

gayleygoo

As a bit of a break from the heated debate , can I give a little advice on returning your LL's post? When writing "return to sender" on it, also write the reason why, i.e. that the person no longer lives at that address. Makes it easier for the postie who has to endorse those letters to send them back and may stop you getting more from the same sender.

And change your locks

Mozzanov

jjlandlord wrote: »

Be my guest: Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

Let's not forget that this is about repairs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/70/section/11

(6)In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.

That is the legislation. Very important is "at reasonable times of the day". Now you need to pair it with 1) common sense and 2) Trading Standards guidance.

Let's take this guidance (regarding unfair terms, very important):
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf

We would object to a provision giving the landlord an excessive right to enter the rented property. Under any kind of lease or tenancy, a landlord is required by common law to allow his tenants 'exclusive possession' and 'quiet enjoyment' of the premises during the tenancy. In other words, tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord.
Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant's consent, except for good reason.

Although a LL has the right to access, there needs to be a respect for the tenant's wishes (but the tenant must also be reasonable - see Saner v. Bilton, which the OFT also mentions in their guidance). This is supported by:
Housing Act 1988 (Section 29):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/29#section-29-2

the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household

Delving further into the OFT guidance:

A term dealing with rights of entry is unlikely to be challenged if it reflects the
ordinary legal position. This recognises that a landlord who is responsible for
carrying out repairs to the property needs reasonable access for two specific
purposes: firstly, in order to check whether repairs are necessary,19 and
secondly, to carry them out.20 Reasonable access means access at
reasonable times, and with at least 24 hours notice in writing, unless there
are exceptional circumstances.

So, to me - when it comes to repairs or an inspection regarding condition of the property - this all suggests that both parties need to be reasonable. It strongly suggests that the LL should get an agreement of when they can enter and should respect this, unless the tenant is unduly unreasonable. Sometimes you come across as "if the landlord says jump then the tenant must jump", which doesn't seem to be supported by anything I have read.

For anything outside of repairs/inspection, then it seems like the tenant has right of refusal. Making a pretence or unreasonably pushing it is more like harassment.

This thread is about a LL coming to collect their post. The tenant has every right to refuse, if they feel uncomfortable with it. They should just forward it on to the notices address that is stated in the contract.

But that is just my opinion though, which ultimately means nothing. Then again, we are all just posting opinions.

CreditCrunchie

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

it'll cost the tenant a fortune and teach them a lesson, and the landlord will be able to re-let the property quickly and at a higher rent.

Problem solved.:)

Comments like that show exactly what kind of person you are.

And by the way, outside of London it is not so simple to fill rented property - We decided to move on after our landlady wanted an extra £100 per month from us. She is a new landlord (an accidental one by all accounts!) and we explained that it would be madness as we're content to stay long term and even pay another month or two up front in exchange for not increasing the rent. She was having non of it and so we've moved on. In over a month there hasn't been a single viewing - she's already lost a month's rent and looks set to lose a second one too. It serves her right, and while I wouldn't wish ill on anyone, it makes me

It goes BOTH ways! You should remember who pays your mortgage/ pension

chucknorris

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In today's renting market, with voids measured in days and rents soaring, in most areas it'll cost the tenant a fortune and teach them a lesson, and the landlord will be able to re-let the property quickly and at a higher rent.

Problem solved.:)

We have 8 investment properties Hamish, I bought the first 3 properties over 23 years ago. In all that time we haven't had a one rental void, except for when we have created voids to carry out refurbishment work between tenancies (new kitchen, new bathroom, building an en-suite bathroom, full redecoration, rewire etc.).

jjlandlord

Mozzanov wrote: »

Let's not forget that this is about repairs.

...

That is the legislation.

The text of the statute has been quoted several times, with clear explanation. There is no need to quote it and try to interpret it yet again.

Regarding the OFT guidance, I think people should pay more attention to what is actually written rather that seeing what they want it to say.

Saner v. Bilton is a good reference.
It must be noted that it is from the 19th century and it has since essentially been embedded in the statutes quoted in this thread.

A very relevant quote from the judge in that case regarding quiet enjoyment:
"I think the covenant for quiet enjoyment must be read as subject to the licence which I have held to be implied in the covenant to repair."

As repeated many times, quiet enjoyment is not absolute in that it is subject to the terms of the lease.
As such, a landlord reasonably using such right of access he may have does not breach quiet enjoyment.

Mozzanov wrote: »

For anything outside of repairs/inspection, then it seems like the tenant has right of refusal.

Nothing in what you quoted suggests that, IMHO.

It all depends on the terms of the tenancy agreement in the exact same way as access for inspections and repairs.
After all, the right of access for inspections is also a contractual terms (albeit inserted by statute).
Obviously such terms will be subject to all the caveats regarding unfair terms, etc. including not granting excessive and unreasonable access rights (as pointed out by OFT).

jaylee3

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And if they don't give permission, then landlords should issue a section 21 and evict at earliest opportunity.

If tenants want to be uncooperative and refuse the inspections agreed in the lease, then landlords should kick them out as soon as possible.

In today's renting market, with voids measured in days and rents soaring, in most areas it'll cost the tenant a fortune and teach them a lesson, and the landlord will be able to re-let the property quickly and at a higher rent.

Problem solved.:)

Yay, what a brilliant idea. The tenant doesn't jump through hoops for you and doesn't allow themselves to be bullied, so you EVICT them! Congratulations! You win 'Landlord of the year' award. :T

What a compassionate person you sound. :cool:

If any landlord practices this nasty, spiteful and underhand tactic, it would serve him right if he ends up with a void for several months, (like creditcrunchie's ex landlady,) and then gets a tenant that doesn't pay the rent, so he ends up with more than six months rent loss!

[Deleted User]

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

Comments like that show exactly what kind of person you are.

And by the way, outside of London it is not so simple to fill rented property - We decided to move on after our landlady wanted an extra £100 per month from us. She is a new landlord (an accidental one by all accounts!) and we explained that it would be madness as we're content to stay long term and even pay another month or two up front in exchange for not increasing the rent. She was having non of it and so we've moved on. In over a month there hasn't been a single viewing - she's already lost a month's rent and looks set to lose a second one too. It serves her right, and while I wouldn't wish ill on anyone, it makes me

It goes BOTH ways! You should remember who pays your mortgage/ pension

It's like this in my area. Properties stay vacant for months on end and it usually takes a cut in rent or first month reduced to get someone in.

Only London and big cities fill rental properties instantly.

Flashmanchop

Deleted_User wrote: »

It's like this in my area. Properties stay vacant for months on end and it usually takes a cut in rent or first month reduced to get someone in.

Only London and big cities fill rental properties instantly.

I have never had any issues 'ooop Norf. rental voids measured in days.

good photos, no fees to pay, flexibility on bond/rent in advance and I am realistic with rent.

areas are predominantly LHA funded.

[Deleted User]

Flashmanchop wrote: »

I have never had any issues 'ooop Norf. rental voids measured in days.

good photos, no fees to pay, flexibility on bond/rent in advance and I am realistic with rent.

areas are predominantly LHA funded.

I'm further 'ooop Norf than Yorkshire. But you are correct, most are up with dodgy letting agencies that use rubbish photos to advertise the property that are years out of date.

starfish_chimp

There area few unpleasant Landlords on this Forum, I have no idea why, since it is a Consumer Forum. Unpleasant Landlords and Agents have plenty of websites they can rant and rage in (just take a look around ....)


Just on the issue of post. It is in my Contract that I forward post to Landlord. No doubt saving them some cash because they don't have to use the Royal Mail Forwarding Service, which is what a normal person would do if they moved. Its actually a bit of a pain as they get loads of post. But if they stick terms like this in their "contract" they think they can stick anything in them.


If I had my chance again (they turned out to be awful LLs) I would just put return to sender on everything...