Delete post

Mojisola

If you don't want to comply with the legislation, you shouldn't become a LL.

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/block18/gaining-access-to-a-tenanted-property
"We continue to own the property but it is now in the possession of the tenant. At the point at which we hand over the keys we have no natural legal right of access and this is something that gets many landlords into trouble."

mrginge

Cornucopia wrote: »

No effective Tenancy Agreement would not have such a clause.

And yet, just two posts ago you posted this -

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes... but it would be better if people didn't speculate about things that have a definitive answer, if they know they don't know that definitive answer.

So can we assume that you have read every tenancy agreement to reach your definitive answer? Or should we just dismiss your 'speculation'?

I find it sad that people would apparently be happy to sign a contract knowing that there are clauses within it that they would not honour if/when the time came.

A contract is a legally-enforceable contract. There is no getting away from that. If you don't want to abide by its not unreasonable requirements , don't take the tenancy.

So you've made it nice and clear then. If the term is reasonable, it should be honoured, if it is not then it can be ignored.
Thankfully, with your 'definitive answer' approach, there is of course no ambiguity on the reasonableness of any contract terms.
:doh:

Cornucopia

I think it's pretty clear what I meant, and whether you accept my credentials in the matter is of no consequence to me.

And there really is no merit and no point in misquoting a post simply for the self-righteous glow of argumentativeness.

mrginge

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear what I meant, and whether you accept my credentials in the matter is of no consequence to me.

And there really is no merit and no point in misquoting a post simply for the self-righteous glow of argumentativeness.

Just pointing out your hypocritical viewpoint, not sure where i mis-quoted anything....

*basks in self-righteous glow*

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

If you change the locks, you are legally required to give keys to the Landlord. It is a pointless gesture.

Which law dictates this?! I suggest you are lying sir

Cornucopia

I said that Tenants ought to be abiding by Tenancy Agreements, and if they object to any terms they have the option to not take the tenancy. They could also negotiate before signing.

You somehow interpreted that as meaning that they could ignore terms they found unreasonable. And then further compounded that by claiming that the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable represented vagueness on my part, when it was clearly intended to indicate "in the opinion of the tenant".

It's a simple legal principle: don't sign a contract you aren't prepared to abide by. If you do, expect hassle, costs and legal sanctions.

And I'm guessing you may not know what "hypocritical" means.

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

Which law dictates this?! I suggest you are lying sir

We've been through this - read the thread.

Let me rephrase for the ease of your understanding. A Tenancy Agreement is a legally-binding contract, and will invariably have clauses governing the changing of locks.

harrys_dad

This "debate" is not really helpful to the OP is it? Hopefully we can all agree that for the agent to come in unaccompanied, moving stuff around, and leaving it wherever they put it, is unacceptable.

In my view arranging an "open house" so quickly without even asking the tenant is unacceptable.

I suggest OP that you write to your landlord at the address for notices on the tenancy agreement and make the following points :

(i) You do not give permission for access by third parties to your house.
(ii) If such access is required you need to be asked with reasonable notice.
(iii) You are happy to be reasonable if this is discussed with you, if the LL is also reasonable.

See what response you get. It sounds to me like your LL and the Estate Agent are idiots, but may rspond in a decent fashion. If not, withdraw all cooperation and follow the advice to change the barrels of the locks.

The worst the LL can do is issue a section 21, but if they are wanting to sell you are likely to get one anyway. During that time you might also point out to any prospective purchasers that you will be staying there as long as possible and vacant possession may take a while

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

We've been through this - read the thread.

Let me rephrase for the ease of your understanding. A Tenancy Agreement is a legally-binding contract, and will invariably have clauses governing the changing of locks.

Let me clarify for you, since you to not comprehend the law very well.

Your document, is not legally binding by it's very existence. It is a contract which is governed by law. It's terms are agreed between two parties. The terms are subject to the law, so you could not put in for example, you may punch the tenant in the face on the 15th of every month.

If you one party decides to not be held by the terms of the contract the other party may ask a court to issue a legally binding court order, which may enforce the clause. Until that point what u have is a disputed contract.

pmlindyloo

It would be useful for the OP to tell us when their tenancy agreement began and when it ends or whether they are on a periodic (month to month tenancy)

This is all to do with whether the landlord is acting reasonably.

This argument about allowing access to the landlord/his agent (although I am not sure that an estate agent who is not involved with the letting of the property could be classed as his agent) is, as already said, not really helping the OP.

It has already been said that what happened was unacceptable from the point of view that the LL misrepresented what was going to happen and personal possessions were disturbed. A letter of complaint is sufficient here to make sure that it does not happen again.

The whole matter really hinges on the OP's tenancy. If they are only half way through their tenancy agreement (unless there's a break clause) then it would be reasonable to refuse access for viewings because of the remaining length of the tenancy.

If there is one month left on the fixed tenancy agreement then it would seem reasonable to grant access.

According to the CAB website (which is based on regulations and case law) the LL can ask to enter the premises to access repairs/do repairs with 24 hours (or reasonable notice) or in an emergency. For everything else they would need a court order.

If the tenancy agreement said that the tenant should allow viewings in the last month at suitable times and with 24 hours notice then this would probably deemed as reasonable by a court. If it said viewings at any time by anyone during the fixed term then this would not be reasonable.

In the end refusal to allow any viewings at any time (even if it was in the contract) could only be settled by a court. That is why it is often suggested to change locks/not allow viewings because the time involved in the LL going to court for a court order makes it just not worth while for the LL. Just as easy to issue a Section 21 (if appropriate)

I do have a great deal of sympathy for the OP and other people in this situation.

It is the OP's home for the moment. The LL may own the building but has started a letting business and should therefore conduct everything in a business like fashion.

If a LL wants to sell his house whilst a tenant is occupying it then, at the very least and in my opinion, they should be offering a financial incentive (reduced rent) for the inconvenience and loss of quiet enjoyment. Why should a tenant be told to leave their home whilst an Open Day takes place?

In the end the OP has to make the decision what to do based on their own particualr circumstances.