Notice to tenants regarding viewing times

purplethreads

Thanks to everyone who has replied for their comments. I've spent most of the last 18 years living in Australia and this is my first UK tenancy , so part of this is my complete lack of knowledge as to what is and isn't possiblye under UK law.

I went and had a look at my lease and the relevant clauses are
4.3.11 Permit the landlord and or the landlord's agent or others , after giving 24 hours written notice and at reasonable hours of the daytime to enter the property

purplethreads

Thank to everyone who has left comments explaining relevent bits and pieces. Part of this fact this is first UK tenancy after living for 18 years in Australia and I have very little idea of what is and is not permissible in the UK regarding tenancies. I really appreciate the comments explaining things because I know so little. I did read the lease when I got it but certain clauses obviously did not stick. I didn't even realise that viewing conditions could be set in the lease.

I dug out my lease to see what the clauses are and they are as follows:

4.3.11 Permit the landlord and or the landlord's agent or others after giving 24 hours written notice and at reasonable hours of the daytime to enter the property
4.3.11.3 to show propective tenants the property during the last month of the term and to erect a board to indicate that the property is to let.

So my interpretation of that is they have to give us 24 hours notice in writing.

I will be writing to the real estate agent about this and see how it goes from there.

kiddy_guy

I think that you've had numerous replies and nobody has hit the nail on the head yet.

You don't have to allow any viewings unless you want - and then only when you want. You're entitled to "quiet enjoyment" and that means that unless the landlord suspects the place is on fire, or there is a periodic agreed inspection, they CANNOT enter.

So it's down to you - whether you want people in YOUR property or not.

The fact there's a clause in the contract is neither here or there. The law trumps anything written in your contract. If your contract said that the landlord could come and stay every night if they wanted - would you allow it?

Read this

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/11/15/when-tenants-wont-allow-access-for-viewings/

dancingfairy

There appears to be various conflicting laws here. As said you have the right to quiet enjoyment of the property. I believe the landlord is allowed to enter the property for emergencies or with a court order. The agent has clearly jumped the gun and entered without your permission.
Generally the best thing would be common courtesy and negotiation on both sides. If you want to be reasonable I suggest you write to them and let them know you are happy to do viewings at x times or once a week on a saturday or with 24 hours and you accepting over the phone (a voicemail saying they will come in anyway is not acceptable). If you feel they will ignore your wishes then you can write and refuse all viewings and change the lock and they would have to take you to court (by which time you'd a) be long gone and b) I don't think it's unreasonable to refuse viewings given the situation so far - I'd doubt a judge would grant them unrestricted access).
Hopefully a bit of common sense from the agents, and respecting the fact that it is currently your home would go a long way to solving this.
df

G_M

kiddy_guy wrote: »

I think that you've had numerous replies and nobody has hit the nail on the head yet.

You don't have to allow any viewings unless you want - and then only when you want. You're entitled to "quiet enjoyment" and that means that unless the landlord suspects the place is on fire, or there is a periodic agreed inspection, they CANNOT enter.

So it's down to you - whether you want people in YOUR property or not.

The fact there's a clause in the contract is neither here or there. The law trumps anything written in your contract. If your contract said that the landlord could come and stay every night if they wanted - would you allow it?

Read this

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/11/15/when-tenants-wont-allow-access-for-viewings/

Sadly, you too have not 'hit the nail on the head'

"The law trumps anything written in your contract." is a meaningless statement. The contract IS 'the law' It is a legal document. Statute (an Act of Parliament) is ALSO 'the law' - another aspect of it.

And 'Quiet Enjoyment' is a right based on common law - yet another aspect of 'The Law'.

Yes, statute generally trumps contract law, but Quiet Enjoyment is not based on statute (that why you did not quote an Act?). Common law, on the other hand, does not 'trump' contract law.

So (as I explained earlier) the common law right of QE is in conflict with the LL's contractual right of access. Hence, if a dispute arises (ie the tenant refuses the LL access), a judge would need to weigh up the two rights and make a ruling on the particular circumstances.

The judge may well rule that the LL has a right of access ('trumping' the tenant's right to Quiet Enjoyment).

My point is that in practice, the time, cost and effort involved in getting a judge to make this legal ruling means that in practice, a tenant could deny access and not be over-ruled by the courts till after the tenancy has ended.....

kiddy_guy

That said, you're basically agreeing with me though :rotfl:

I think we could debate the "quiet enjoyment" element to death, the point is whether theoretical or in practice, you're about as likely to find a judge who'd rule in favour of a LL in this case we're presented with here as you are to find a Unicorn playing chess in the houses of parliament...

The rule of QE is universally accepted, by LL associations, government bodies, etc...

You could also argue that the right to access is extended to the LL, not the EA. I think you'd find it virtually impossible in this case whereby a court would rule in favour of allowing an EA access to a property on a regular basis to allow viewings.

The OP wants a straightforward answer, not a "could/should/would" answer. The fact remains in the case we're presented with here, the OP has the option to not allow viewings without any risk of repercussion.

G_M

kiddy_guy wrote: »

That said, you're basically agreeing with me though :rotfl:
...

You could also argue that the right to access is extended to the LL, not the EA. ....

The OP wants a straightforward answer, not a "could/should/would" answer. The fact remains in the case we're presented with here, the OP has the option to not allow viewings without any risk of repercussion.

Which is why I said what I did way back in post 3 :

you could rely on your implied common law right of Quiet Enjoyment to contest their contractual right.

If you wish to do this, do so in writing.

However you started your post "..nobody has hit the nail on the head yet." and then went on to make a legally incorrect assertion that " The law trumps anything written in your contract." I simply corrected that, to provide the OP, and others, with a more accurate understanding.

Oh, and if the LL has a right of access then that would extend to anyone acting on his behalf ie an agent.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

If you get tired, go to bed.

Then do your 'homework' once you've woken up fresh and ready for a new day.

Someone's loosing his temper when cornered, it seems... That's the ego trip.

thesaint

Does your contract say anything about access for viewings?

G_M

jjlandlord wrote: »

Someone's loosing his temper when cornered, it seems... That's the ego trip.

Not cornered and no loss of temper. Just a kindly suggestion made to you at the time.