LL keeps arranging viewings without notice

thesaint

rpc wrote: »

Now that we have moved to harassment, verbal abuse and threats of illegal eviction I think we are past the point of what the contract says.

My point is that a court would look at this as a starting point.
Everyone wading in with their size 10's isn't what was required.

If we started at the beginning, then the OP could possibly have been helped in a more constructive manner.

sartois

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Might be worth mentioning that you get free legal advice at work (even if you don't)- that always made agents go a bit quiet when they were trying it on eg telling me it was "against the law" for me to contact my LL directly.

The thing is they know where I work... a very large firm in the city... When I phoned up about putting my notice to vacate in. 'the wife' was asking me if I can put in a good word for her sons and help them get on the ladder... who somewhat ironically are doing legal degrees!

thesaint

sartois wrote: »

The exact wording is:

"During the last two months of the tenancy, upon a minimum of 24 hours notice prior notification, to permit the premises to be viewed during working hours and or at other reasonable times including at week-ends by prospective tenants or purchasers who are authorised to do so by the landlord or the appointed Agent. Except when mutually agreed otherwise with the tenant, the landlord or his authorised Agent or representative will accompany these viewing appointments."

sartois wrote: »

This clause is what they believe gives them the right to enter the premises without my permission, or my being present.

They have your permission, by way of the clause.
The clause does not require you to be present.

sartois wrote: »

They say they have the right to go in there whenever they want as long as they let me know 24 hours in advance.

They do(at "reasonable" times). That is clear to me.

You may be in a different position now, due to them not honouring your agreement, but I am not 100% on that.

sartois

thesaint wrote: »

They have your permission, by way of the clause.
The clause does not require you to be present.

Really? What about what it says here then?

http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/landlords-right-of-entry/

This suggests that the clause would be void by a court.

bouicca21

It might be useful for OP to check out the law regarding illegal eviction. There have been other threads where the police have refused to intervene claiming that it is a civil rather than criminal matter but I am sure more knowledgeable posters have given chapter and verse on it being a criminal offence. It just might be necessary for OP to be armed with this information.

thesaint

sartois wrote: »

Really? What about what it says here then?

http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/landlords-right-of-entry/

This suggests that the clause would be void by a court.

A landlord does have the right to ‘reasonable’ access to carry out repairs for which they are responsible, but they still always need to ask for the tenant’s permission, and give at least 24 hours notice.

They don't know what they are talking about.

RAS

sartois wrote: »

Really? What about what it says here then?

http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/landlords-right-of-entry/

This suggests that the clause would be void by a court.

thesaint always argues that contract terms trump the right to quiet enjoyment.

tunnel

You have a right to quiet enjoyment and now is the time to exercise that right.

They have a right of access with 24hr notice, but at your descretion, just insist the notice is done in writing(not email or txt). You could play silly !!!!!!s then if you so wished by denying that you have received notice, they would get rather p$$$ed off if they suddenly have to send every letter by special delivery.

sartois

tunnel wrote: »

You have a right to quiet enjoyment and now is the time to exercise that right.

They have a right of access with 24hr notice, but at your descretion, just insist the notice is done in writing(not email or txt). You could play silly !!!!!!s then if you so wished by denying that you have received notice, they would get rather p$$$ed off if they suddenly have to send every letter by special delivery.

I am not and never have denied them access. I asked them to not go into the property to show someone round as I had left financial records on my desk. They had someone that they wanted to show around immediately and ignored my request to do the viewing the next day and went in anyway ignoring the clause that says they need to give me 24 hours notice.

As they cannot be trusted to respect my wishes (or indeed the tenancy agreement) I changed the code to the door. This would obviously mean that I would need to be present when they are showing people around. They do not like this as I am quite busy and am not often there at reasonable hours so I have offered them 1 or 2 nights a week when they can conduct viewings. They threw a tantrum at this and said they would rather sue me than accept this compromise.

So the question is.... supposing the clause was enforceable by law... do I have to give them the new code (they abused this privilege previously), and/or do I have to make myself available with 24 hours notice?

I am freelance so my time really does equate to money and to make myself available every evening and in working hours will actually cost me...

RAS

You do not need to give them the code; in fact having threatened you with illegal eviction the advice would always be that you need to change the locks/change the code to secure your home from their threatened action.

You are NOT required to let them in whenever they want at 24 hours notice.

You are expect to be reasonable; you made a reasonable offer. They refused to accept it.

The courts would take that into account.

I cannot recall a single instance reported here when a tenants was successfully sued in a situation like this and can recall plently where the tenant insisted on quiet enjoyment.

In one recent example the LL actually told the tenant expecting a long-term rental they would have to leave at the end of the fixed term because they refused to permit her repeated entry to the property. The LL thought better of it a few days later and withdrew the threatened notice.