Delete post

thesaint

Mojisola wrote: »

If permission was given as stated, the LL should have contacted the tenant if he wasn't going to be with the EA.

No, the OP didn't state it was a condition.
The landlord had given notice, so, he, or anyone he appoints can then go to the property.

Him saying he was going with the agent does not imply that if he wasn't going, that things were any different.

It's like him saying to expect him to turn up in his Mercedes. If he decided to take his BMW, it doesn't mean that he has breached any agreement.

He gave notice. That's that.

specialboy

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

Apology accepted.

mrginge

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

I am still laughing at this.

jjlandlord

Cornucopia wrote: »

The most obvious loss is the need to obtain a Locksmith and/or new locks when the Tenant departs without handing the (new) keys back.

Well of course.
But that's just like any other damages noticed during the check out.

Presumably the point of the landlord having a key is to be able to use it during the tenancy.

I'm thinking that if the landlord gives notice that he is going to inspect, the tenant does not say anything, then the landlord cannot access because the tenant has changed the lock, then the landlord could potentially claim for his time and travel cost.

19lottie82

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.

So if a tenancy agreement said The tenant must only wear green pants on a Monday and Friday, would this be enforceable?

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes it is. It is a document which once signed by both parties becomes legally-binding under contract law.


Indeed, a Tenancy Agreement cannot have within it an exemption or direction regarding breaking the law as defined in legislation.



And where have I said differently - you've simply added some relevant detail.

Just because the cops might not bother to detect you speeding, or might not bother catching you if they do, does not make it any less of an offence.

By the very definition of the law, innocent until proven guilty, unless caught, prosecuted and found guilty, the 'offence' has not taken place.

The contract is not legally binding until the court seems it so, you can say I'm being pedantic, but it may well be a legally correct document, completely enforceable, but until a court says so it is on the goodwill of either party to adhere to the terms.

Therefore, legally I may have to give the landlord the keys, if the court seems it necessary, if it is a term in the contract. But you saying so is not the same as a court saying so.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

Well of course.
But that's just like any other damages noticed during the check out.

Presumably the point of the landlord having a key is to be able to use it during the tenancy.

I'm thinking that if the landlord gives notice that he is going to inspect, the tenant does not say anything, then the landlord cannot access because the tenant has changed the lock, then the landlord could potentially claim for his time and travel cost.

At what rate?

How many pence per mile? Being self employed he is not entitled to the minimum wage, so what is his time worth?

dancingfairy

Personally I wouldn't go out and trust anyone to do viewings on my house. Especially after the first episode. I would write (for the avoidance of doubt) to the letting agents and the landlord, express your disappointment and explain what you want ie viewings at such and such a time or only viewings in the morning (or whatever you feel is reasonable).
I would try and be reasonable if possible although it does depend on your tenancy agreement and how you've been treated so far in your tenancy. If your landlord has been reasonable and you've been there for ages then you might be more helpful than if you'd just signed a contract and the landlord has immediately put the house up for sale.
As it doesn't give a lot of time for a letter to get there for Saturday and for them to cancel any viewings I would probably also send an email informing them of the same but send a hard copy in the post as well.
As you've no doubt discovered both you and your landlord have rights and they don't always sit well together. As with everything you should attempt to be reasonable (and keep it in writing) then at least if it did go to court it would be for a judge to decide what's what and it would be harder for the landlord to prove a loss if you have been co-operative and had given several slots for viewings.
df

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

By the very definition of the law, innocent until proven guilty, unless caught, prosecuted and found guilty, the 'offence' has not taken place.

In other circumstances, that's exactly the kind of thing I would say. It's largely semantics, though. The offence has been committed in a factual sense, the Law merely has to turn the cogs to make it true in a legal sense.

The contract is not legally binding until the court seems it so, you can say I'm being pedantic, but it may well be a legally correct document, completely enforceable, but until a court says so it is on the goodwill of either party to adhere to the terms.

I don't think it's pedantry, I think it's plain wrong. The contract is legally-binding within the law. Disputes are resolved through legal action (assuming that the parties can't agree in any other way).

I won't bother with the "this is what's wrong with our society" hyperbole - you can see where I'm going with that.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

It would seem that this is a controversial area amongst actual housing professionals.

On the one hand, legislation provides for quiet enjoyment, and stipulates that the LL has rights of access for repairs and inspection with 24 hours notice, or immediately in the case of an emergency.

On the other hand, a clause expecting provision to be made by the Tenant for viewings at the end of the tenancy is common in most Tenancy Agreements.

Again, incorrect. Quiet enjoyment is a common law right, legislation is passed by parliament.

Quiet enjoyment is not absolute, but it does conflict with the LLs contractual rights, and the reality is that the LL will likely bare the bring of cost enforcing the agreement