Tenant never moved in,but paid upfront....

fishpond

karlosmaximos wrote: »

I entered as the water board contatced me to say they thought there was a leak and the risk of the house getting flooded-it turned out to be the flush system on the toilet.

His ex employer doesnt know whats happened to him!

A neighbour may have raised some concerns about a smell of gas.
Water had been gushing from the overflow, Someone rang you up.
Personally, I wouldn't involve the waterboard without proof they were involved.

Its very strange.

jjlandlord

karlosmaximos wrote: »

I entered as the water board contatced me to say they thought there was a leak and the risk of the house getting flooded-it turned out to be the flush system on the toilet.

Perfectly reasonable and not a big deal. As said.

Don't worry, some people like to have a go at landlords.

SeduLOUs

jjlandlord wrote: »

Perfectly reasonable and not a big deal. As said.

Don't worry, some people like to have a go at landlords.

Yes, perfectly reasonable now that we know the justification.

Prior to that explanation you were claiming that it was 'no big deal' that he just let himself into a tenant's house without any reasonable explanation for doing so.

Even re the water thing, OP should have made all reasonable attempts to contact tenant before entering.

I would be somewhat unimpressed if I came home to find my landlord wandering around because the water board had contacted him - he should be contacting me first to discuss and let me know he is coming round, albeit at short notice under the circumstances.

G_M

Just want to add my two-pence worth:

the dogmatic view that landlords have no right of access is unhelpful and misleading.

LL's have that right in certain circumstances. Tenants have protection from harassment and undue interference with quiet enjoyment.

Thus it is not a black/white rule. There are shades of grey, & any court (if it came to court) would look at the specific circumstances of the particular case. In this case (based on what we know) it seems likely that a court would rule access by the LL was justified.

Reference to a jury, needs no comment other than :rotfl:.

jjlandlord

SeduLOUs wrote: »

Yes, perfectly reasonable now that we know the justification.

Prior to that explanation you were claiming that it was 'no big deal' that he just let himself into a tenant's house without any reasonable explanation for doing so.

Blah blah blah blah.

From the beginning of the the thread OP is mentioning that the tenant does not seem to live at the property and seems to have disappeared.
That itself makes it rather reasonable to enter once to check inside.

It is not relevant to the thread and is a distraction (and distract it did).

fishpond

G_M wrote: »

Just want to add my two-pence worth:

the dogmatic view that landlords have no right of access is unhelpful and misleading.

LL's have that right in certain circumstances. Tenants have protection from harassment and undue interference with quiet enjoyment.

Thus it is not a black/white rule. There are shades of grey, & any court (if it came to court) would look at the specific circumstances of the particular case. In this case (based on what we know) it seems likely that a court would rule access by the LL was justified.

Reference to a jury, needs no comment other than :rotfl:.

"Unless in an emergency".
I wouldn't like to justify my entrance to a tenanted property on the basis of what has been written in this thread.
All be it 2 months but an S21 is surely the safest route until more facts are known.

themull1

Can you not go onto facebook and try and contact any of his friends?

kinger101

fishpond wrote: »

"Unless in an emergency".
I wouldn't like to justify my entrance to a tenanted property on the basis of what has been written in this thread.
All be it 2 months but an S21 is surely the safest route until more facts are known.

You were one of the very first to comment on this thread, and you suggested the tenant may be dead. You don't think that's a good reason to enter the property without notice?

fishpond

kinger101 wrote: »

You were one of the very first to comment on this thread, and you suggested the tenant may be dead. You don't think that's a good reason to enter the property without notice?

Short answer --- No, call the police. unless you are used to death in all its forms.--- still call the police.

Longer answer
The suggested may be far from the truth and as the LL had already entered the property, I am sure the smell may have given him a clue if the tenant had died in situ.
I was more inclined to think the tenant may have passed away somewhere else.
Then again, if, for some reason the LL has no sense of smell and the tenant was deceased within the property, has the LL got an in date gas cert? (just in case).

I still say
All be it 2 months but an S21 is surely the safest route until more facts are known.

JencParker

jjlandlord wrote: »

Blah blah blah blah.

From the beginning of the the thread OP is mentioning that the tenant does not seem to live at the property and seems to have disappeared.
That itself makes it rather reasonable to enter once to check inside.

It is not relevant to the thread and is a distraction (and distract it did).

True, but it does beg the question as to why they have left it for six months before doing anything about it, especially since they have a clause in the contract that says they must be informed if the property is unoccupied for more than 14 days. It all sounds very odd.