Would not bother being a landlord again...

jjlandlord

For a good relationship, personal contacts are useful, if not essential.

You won't catch any disease by visiting the tenants and meeting them face to face.
There is nothing wrong with dropping by to deliver a gift personally. If the agent delivers it, it is the exact same thing as if the landlord had done it in terms of 'knocking on their door', but without the personal touch.

It is in fact rather worrying that some people think that face to face contacts should be avoided at all costs and that they immediately start to invoke all sorts of laws and offences.

Of course that does not mean that a landlord should invite himself on a monthly basis. However, once a year is hardly being nosy.

This is a matter of taste but there is nothing wrong with either way.

kinger101

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong the the relationship the LL and tenant has here. It's not the norm, and as pointed out, it it was unwelcome the tenant would (probably* - see below) inform the LL they didn't want unannounced visits. It's exactly what I'd do.

Of course, the occasional visits do not constitute harassment, particularly where it can be established that the tenant does not object to this.

Although it does not relate to this particular case, I would however be cautious of the view that unannounced visits are always okay if the tenant has not refused them (as suggested by real1314). The only thing that really matters is whether they actually cause distress to the tenant, and the LL should have reasonably known this was the case.

Personally, I'd avoid any unannounced visits for the very reason that some people on here have implied it may cause them distress.

I think the suggestions that the tenant may refuse to leave are probably unduly alarmist at this point, although being aware of the procedure if this does happen is useful. But I'd also reiterate my original advice of not inviting them to stay beyond the S21 date, at least, not without being 100% sure you're not accidentally creating a new tenancy by doing so. The agent seems clued up here (for a change) so might be worth running it by them.

Pixie5740

As a tenant I get quarterly or 6 monthly inspections. I don't need nor want another visit at Christmas even if it does come with a bottle of plonk. I've had too many bad experiences with over familiar landlords so I like to keep things professional and see the LA as little as possible. My current LL lives overseas so with a bit of luck we'll never have to meet.

Guest101

mchale wrote: »

I think you missed the most important word in the act you quoted: "persistently" meaning it makes for a very very grey area in terms of "quiet enjoyment"

The criminal offence of harassment is nothing to do with quiet enjoyment.

Case law? Sure

Google: found guilty of harassment - there's thousands

martin1959

Thank you for the comments.


The reason we need to move now is due to a stroke I had a couple of years ago, and have had to reduce my working hours.


I am not expecting problems, the tenants have never given me any cause for concern. If there are problems I have several solicitors I know who will deal with it for me, and accept it may add a couple of months.


Yes, the agent did advise against letting them stay beyond the end date of the AST, and will confirm with the agent tomorrow that I will now accept this advice, and get them to serve S21 notice for end of March.

Guest101

If this thread was:

I'm a LL and my tenant came to my house without notice to tell me they wanted to end the contract, possibly early or possibly after the FT expired.

Clearly they weren't impressed with the state of my house - I wasn't expecting visitors.

Wish they'd just call and let me know.

- I suspect the tenants would be getting the same grief.

- it seems unfortunately a percentage of LLs view tenants as life's failures, for not acquiring property. In many other societies renting is often seen as the norm. This country is obsessed with owning land.

Guest101

martin1959 wrote: »

Thank you for the comments.


The reason we need to move now is due to a stroke I had a couple of years ago, and have had to reduce my working hours.


I am not expecting problems, the tenants have never given me any cause for concern. If there are problems I have several solicitors I know who will deal with it for me, and accept it may add a couple of months.


Yes, the agent did advise against letting them stay beyond the end date of the AST, and will confirm with the agent tomorrow that I will now accept this advice, and get them to serve S21 notice for end of March.

Your stroke clearly influenced your original decision to rent to them, rather than ur decision to move now.

Regardless you're entitled to use legal methods to bring the tenancy to an end

- solicitors fees won't be admissible as costs and you'll have to pay these yourself.

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

- solicitors fees won't be admissible as costs and you'll have to pay these yourself.

That's not true.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

That's not true.

There's no need to involve a solicitor is a simple s21.

It would be very irregular and unlikely that a judge would look kindly at these additional costs.

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

It would be very irregular and unlikely that a judge would look kindly at these additional costs.

That's not true.