Should i pre warn my LL about handing in my notice

thesaint

thesaint wrote: »

Your "visions" are irrelevant. Do not change the locks(s).
Serve your notice, with or without pre-warning.

I suggest you tell your landlord that you would like a copy of your tenancy agreement for the purpose of giving her notice.

kinger101 wrote: »

If you've read most tenancy agreements, you'll find landlords and letting agents think they have some right to violate your privacy, and drag in prospective new tenants with just 24 hours notice. Apparently, this is reasonable notice in their world. If this becomes an annoyance, then OP would be sensible changing the locks.

I haven't read most tenancy agreements. No one has.

I will say that most of the tenancy agreements I have read have no provision for entry to conduct viewings though.

If the tenant has agreed to such a term though, then they have no right to go back on the agreement they made just because they have a "vision".

Gonzo1987

24 hours notice wouldn't bother me, presently I get none.

I have asked for a copy of my tenancy agreement, which when I have it in my paws I will post the break clause here to seek advice for the best way to move forwards.

kermit2601

Gonzo1987 wrote: »

24 hours notice wouldn't bother me, presently I get none.

I have asked for a copy of my tenancy agreement, which when I have it in my paws I will post the break clause here to seek advice for the best way to move forwards.

I think legally the LL is obliged to give 24 hours notice minimum that they wish to enter the property, be that for inspection or viewings. They can REQUEST entry earlier but that then puts it into the hands of the tenant who would be within their rights to refuse but it would just delay the visit by a few hours.

Gonzo1987

kermit2601 wrote: »

I think legally the LL is obliged to give 24 hours notice minimum that they wish to enter the property, be that for inspection or viewings. They can REQUEST entry earlier but that then puts it into the hands of the tenant who would be within their rights to refuse but it would just delay the visit by a few hours.

Yeah, they don't give any notice and just show up whenever they feel like it to gardening and things. Part of the reason why I want to leave so soon.

I know legally they have to, but there doesn't appear to be anything you can do if they ignore that.

Guest101

Gonzo1987 wrote: »

Yeah, they don't give any notice and just show up whenever they feel like it to gardening and things. Part of the reason why I want to leave so soon.

I know legally they have to, but there doesn't appear to be anything you can do if they ignore that.

U can change the locks and refuse entry.

This is a big debate, but certainly nothing illegal about the above.

If the LL wishes to take you to court to enforce and clauses in the document they can do.

In practice it is better all round if appointments are agreed well in advance. LLs leave themselves open to claims of harassment and theft if they just turn up.

Quiet enjoyment still exists, and it is upto a judge to decide what is reasonable.

It is reasonable to wish to inspect and to show perspective tenants around. But notice reasonably is a minimum on24 written, in practice therefore 72 hours.

And it is in the best interests of the LL that the tenant is cooperative. Let's be fair, tenants are not going to rent a place if it is messy, dirty or has inappropriate material on display.

Given the need for notice, there is no need for the LL to be concerned re changing the locks.

thesaint

Guest101 wrote: »

U can change the locks and refuse entry.

This is a big debate, but certainly nothing illegal about the above.

If the LL wishes to take you to court to enforce and clauses in the document they can do.

In practice it is better all round if appointments are agreed well in advance. LLs leave themselves open to claims of harassment and theft if they just turn up.

Quiet enjoyment still exists, and it is upto a judge to decide what is reasonable.

It is reasonable to wish to inspect and to show perspective tenants around. But notice reasonably is a minimum on24 written, in practice therefore 72 hours.

And it is in the best interests of the LL that the tenant is cooperative. Let's be fair, tenants are not going to rent a place if it is messy, dirty or has inappropriate material on display.

Given the need for notice, there is no need for the LL to be concerned re changing the locks.

Following the above advice could lead you to appear in court with a bill for any damage caused to the property due to the landlord not being able to gain access in an emergency.

Guest101

I’d like to put this into context, since I knew someone would try to play this card.

So let’s start like this:

The chances of an emergency developing (fire, flood, or if applicable, gas leak), when the tenant is not present, but for some reason the landlord is and is the person who discovers the incident, but cannot gain access, or provide access to the responding emergency services. At which point damage is caused which can be evidenced to be much more extensive than it otherwise would be has the landlord had access, the tenant could be liable (the LL should still possess sufficient insurance in place for the structure of the building).

The likelihood of the LL, as opposed to anyone else discovering the emergency, is really negligible. I would question why the LL was randomly checking on the property, and in terms of such an emergency, would either have to be checking very closely, or the damage is so extensive as to be seen from a reasonable distance, that access is no longer a contributing factor to the damage.

It is far more likely to be a neighbour, or passer-by, or the tenant themselves, at which point the LL is not the person who is called out to gain access, but instead emergency services will usually make their own access. (in the case of gas, a central shut-off is first enacted, however with gas being deadly, fire and rescue will also make their own access and not try to to locate the landlord, and wait for his arrival).

In summary, emergencies are VERY rare, the chances of one happening, being discovered by the landlord, and the lack of access causing substantial additional damage, is so ridiculously low, that you’ve more chance to be hit by lightning whilst carrying the winning euro millions ticket.

But thanks for posting the expected reply J

lulalola

I once decided to be courteous and pre-warn the letting agents that I expected to give my notice soon. They then harassed me constantly about when I was going to do so (despite my assuring them that I understood the procedure and the notice period required), telling me how unfair it was on the landlord. I then left it as late as I could to give my notice and I won't bother warning anyone next time.

kinger101

thesaint wrote: »

I haven't read most tenancy agreements. No one has.

I will say that most of the tenancy agreements I have read have no provision for entry to conduct viewings though.

If the tenant has agreed to such a term though, then they have no right to go back on the agreement they made just because they have a "vision".

Er....the tenant has every right to refuse something which is actually contrary to the law.

jjlandlord

kinger101 wrote: »

Er....the tenant has every right to refuse something which is actually contrary to the law.

It's fortunate that this is not contrary to the law, then.