Landlord entered flat without permission

Lily-Rose_3

BornAtTheRightTime wrote: »

The law has been clearly quoted several times by jjlandlord, thesaint, benjus etc. At no point have they suggested they actually intend to enforce their rights to access in an over-bearing manner* or that they do this as a matter of course - sadly those illogically arguing against the stated law have resorted to name-calling and character assassination.

Time to stop feeding the trolls.

*Except Hamish, but surely no-one will be taking contribution seriously.

I think that people on both sides have resorted to name calling and insults, but I have found the people who say they are landlords to be more rude. jjlandlords post above ^ backs that up. He and several others seem to resort to mocking and trying to ridicule people if they don't like what they say.

And now you have resorted to name-calling too, by calling people trolls who don't agree with what you think. The term pot kettle black springs to mind.

To the best of my knowledge, it's correct that a landlord can't enter a property unless the tenant gives permission, unless it is an emergency. I remember my own private let landlord saying this himself when I was in private let. (post 131.)

There seems to be differing opinions on here, but at the end of the day, it's possible that on some level - everyone has a point. It's just, there is no need at all for people to resort to name calling and mocking. And that's aimed at everyone.

thesaint

Lily-Rose wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, it's correct that a landlord can't enter a property unless the tenant gives permission, unless it is an emergency. I remember my own private let landlord saying this himself when I was in private let. (post 131.)

As has been demonstrated many, many times, this is not the case.

[Deleted User]

thesaint wrote: »

As has been demonstrated many, many times, this is not the case.

Well if I was renting again I would be changing the locks anyway so no landlord would be able to get in without prior notification.

My advice about changing the locks is more for your security rather than blocking access to landlords. As I've already stated you just don't know who still has keys to the property that can fall into wrong hands.

poppysarah

Deleted_User wrote: »

My advice about changing the locks is more for your security rather than blocking access to landlords. As I've already stated you just don't know who still has keys to the property that can fall into wrong hands.

Changing locks for next tenant is a sensible idea for that very reason.
The tenant might have given back as many keys as they were given but that doesn't mean they haven't kept a spare one.

thesaint

Deleted_User wrote: »

Well if I was renting again I would be changing the locks anyway so no landlord would be able to get in without prior notification.

My advice about changing the locks is more for your security rather than blocking access to landlords. As I've already stated you just don't know who still has keys to the property that can fall into wrong hands.

I could give you a million scenarios, both justified, and not justified.
There is one legal position. Which has been stated, many, many times.

mrginge

There's some proper loons on this thread.

The issue isn't whether or not the LL has a right of entry under the law (they do), it is whether they want to got to the hassle of enforcing that right if a tenant tries to prevent it (by changing locks for example).

I would agree that changing locks is, in most cases a sensible course of action, regardless of whether it was prohibited by a contract clause.
If a LL tried to enforce such a term then a quiet enjoyment defence may well be successful, or it may not.

Personally i would take that chance, since i think it is valid to argue that your personal security is more important than complying with a debatable contract term like that. I would also be up front with the LL about this.

Changing locks does not of course automatically prevent a LL's right of access, it just forces them to follow the correct procedure. It also removes potential for conflict.
However, if i had changed the locks, denied entry and been taken to court, I would expect a court to allow access as long as the reason for the request was sensible. I would also expect to have to pay costs.


In either case, going to court costs time and money and is really not worth the hassle in many scenarios. Much better for the LL to ask politely, keep things civil if declined and if necessary, evict the tenant at the earliest opportunity.

Tenants who play hardball on issues like is are usually the ones who end up moving around a lot....

CreditCrunchie

mrginge wrote: »

Tenants who play hardball on issues like is are usually the ones who end up moving around a lot....

Landlords who play hardball and disregard tenant rights are the ones who end up losing out on rent through long void periods...

Flashmanchop

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

Landlords who play hardball and disregard tenant rights are the ones who end up losing out on rent through long void periods...

I would say this is debateable on both counts - however, I don't think this thread has the room....

thesaint

mrginge wrote: »

Personally i would take that chance, since i think it is valid to argue that your personal security is more important than complying with a debatable contract term like that. I would also be up front with the LL about this.

Please note. It is not a "debatable contract term".
It is one that the government saw fit to insert into every AST even if the landlord forgot/had no idea about including.

mrginge

thesaint wrote: »

Please note. It is not a "debatable contract term".
It is one that the government saw fit to insert into every AST even if the landlord forgot/had no idea about including.

Can you just confirm that and provide reference please.

Every AST has a contract term that forbids the changing of locks?