LL keeps arranging viewings without notice

nick12

Sections 3.32-3.34 of this are worth a read:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284440/oft356.pdf

Annie1960

sartois wrote: »

So I have just spoken to the EA/LL and have learnt 4 new things from them:

1. They only have to give me 24 hours notice that they are coming over and they can enter whether I have granted permission for them to do so or not.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/private_renting/problems_with_renting/harassment_by_a_landlord

This is definitely unreasonable behaviour, according to Shelter, and may constitute harassment.

2. I have no right to be there when they come over and if I say no then that is not relevant - they have the right to do viewings as per tenancy agreement.

Unfair term if they have written this in to contract.

3. If I don't want to allow them to have viewings that's fine but I have to pay a 'void' period.

Pure nonsense.

4. They are not willing to compromise as I offered them the opportunity to arrange viewings for 1 or 2 nights a week when I am there but that is not acceptable to them and they insist on going in whenever they want as long as I give them 24 hours notice. I was informed they have a large mortgage on the property that needs paying as the reason for this.

Their mortgage is nothing to do with you. I really think you should report them to ARLA, NALS or TPOS if they belong, otherwise to Trading Standards, because they will do this to others if nobody stands up to them.

I can only come to 2 conclusions following that conversation:

1. They think I am a bit soft in the head.
2. They think that I do not know how to change the code to the front door.

Yes, change the code as a first step.

jjlandlord

Annie1960 wrote: »

Not true. One of the principles of the DPA is that any data that is collected and stored must be done only for purposes that have been agreed with the subject. In this case, the subject is now withdrawing their consent for the EA to hold the data, so the EA must remove it from their records.

There is no such right.

Annie1960

jjlandlord wrote: »

There is no such right.

Go and read the DPA.

jjlandlord

Annie1960 wrote: »

Go and read the DPA.

Yes, I did.

rpc

jjlandlord wrote: »

There is no such right.

Schedule 2, para 1. I don't see that any other paragraph in the schedule applies, so the "data processing" can only be carried out while paragraph one is true.

s10 probably applies in this case, if nothing else.

In any case, all OP would need to do is inform the LA that they will not accept verbal notice. Unless it is written into the contract (which would be rather unusual), that notification would be binding. Notice can only be served by agreed methods or those defined in CPR.

jjlandlord

rpc wrote: »

Schedule 2, para 1. I don't see that any other paragraph in the schedule applies, so the "data processing" can only be carried out while paragraph one is true.

s10 probably applies in this case, if nothing else.

Exactly what I said, then.

I'm sure you all realise that if we could all just 'remove consent' and tell people to erase information, everyone would have a perfect credit file, etc., right?

Annie1960

jjlandlord wrote: »

Exactly what I said, then.

I'm sure you all realise that if we could all just 'remove consent' and tell people to erase information, everyone would have a perfect credit file, etc., right?

Wrong. You are missing the point.

I have successfully used the DPA on a number of occasions to get organisations to stop ringing me up (e.g. a building society that kept phoning me to open accounts with them). Constantly phoning someone up when you have asked them to stop constitutes harassment.

The EA is, according to Shelter, behaving unreasonably, and it may constitute harassment. Asking for them to delete your phone number in these circumstances is reasonable, and I bet the ICO would support this request if a complaint were made to it.

rpc

jjlandlord wrote: »

Exactly what I said, then.

I'm sure you all realise that if we could all just 'remove consent' and tell people to erase information, everyone would have a perfect credit file, etc., right?

Para 1 requires consent, I don't see any other relevant paragraph enabling data processing in this case therefore without consent no processing can take place. Schedule 2 is an "or" list and only one of the requirements is consent.

In terms of credit files, Schedule 2 para 2, 3, 5, 6 could all be argued to apply therefore bypassing the need for consent. You also have part IV and Schedule 7 to exempt certain purposes from the DPA.

The harassment approach described by Annie1960 more likely hinges on s10.

RAS

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm sure you all realise that if we could all just 'remove consent' and tell people to erase information, everyone would have a perfect credit file, etc., right?

This is NOT what was being suggested.

The EA is not being asked to erase information.

They are being asked to remove one number that relates to one means of contact with the OP because they are abusing that means of contact.

As long as they have one means of contacting the OP (via e-mail, letter) then they have all the means required to deliver their service to the OP and other customers.

I have insisted on a number of companies doing this and even my bank know that they can only use my phone number to contact me about my account (strange withdrawals) not for marketing purposes.