Landlady putting house on market

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

Yes. However you should research the topic first.

Please enlighten me, where has a judge or tenancy deposit scheme ever upheld this term?

pyueck

G_M wrote: »

Oh dear. Not again.

This is, of course, rubbish.

As regularly explained on this forum, 'quiet enjoyment' is an implied contractual right, not a statutory right. If it conflicts with other contractual rights (ie a clause in the contract), there is no automatic 'trumping' as you claim.

Where a contract has disputed and/or conflicting terms, it would ultimately be for a court to decide which took precedence ('trumped' the other), though obviously it is far better to resolve amicably through negotiation than involve the courts.

In this case:

1) check the wording in your contract
2) decide what you want (ie to be helpful or obstructive)
3) decide on an acceptable compromise position (ie viewings on 1 or 2 pre-agreed days/times per week; in your presence/absence), following sufficient notice; with a pomise to 'tidy' the property or not)
4) decide if you want copensation (reduced rent, one-off payment etc)

then
a) discuss amicably with landlord (ideally) or agent
b) confim whatever you agree in writing

You are categorically wrong. Read the Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements. Some terms are invalid if they are unfair because they deny common law agreed principles like quiet enjoyment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284440/oft356.pdf

molerat

pyueck wrote: »

............ but if a tenant does refuse to allow any viewings to the property until they move out there is pretty much nothing a landlord can do. .........

Which is pretty much the truth of the situation

jjlandlord

pyueck wrote: »

You are categorically wrong. Read the Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements. Some terms are invalid if they are unfair because they deny common law agreed principles like quiet enjoyment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284440/oft356.pdf

As said, you should research, and understand, the topic first.

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

As said, you should research, and understand, the topic first.

But you can't tell me why I am wrong?

Common law is that a tenant has exclusive right to quiet enjoyment of the premises during the entirety of their lease.

The L&T act allows landlord right of entrance in emergencies.

The OFT have released a publication clarifying that any term that denies this is unfair.

No court has to my knowledge ever given a tenant a penalty for not allowing a viewing.

No deposit scheme has to my knowledge ever upheld a withholding of the deposit where a tenant denies viewings.

Yet you say I should do more research...fine but where....

firebird082

OP, you have my sympathies. We had a similar situation last year, and did our best to be helpful to our LL as his wife had just lost her mother. We allowed viewings, the EA to come round and take photos, but the last straw was when the LL phoned me up to say the state of the house in the photos was not good enough and that it was our fault the house wasn't selling. I'm not sure what state they were expecting when we were in the middle of packing... anyway, at that point I phoned back and told them no more help from us - we would allow one more open day on a Saturday when we were away anyway and that was it. You have to be firm. Turns out they never did manage to sell the house - we think it's being rented out again now :rotfl:

Edit: just re-read. Definitely don't allow them to do anything before May. I wouldn't even allow them to put a for sale sign up. Don't think they'll get many takers if you haven't even been served the S21 yet!

zarf2007

pyueck wrote: »

But you can't tell me why I am wrong?

Common law is that a tenant has exclusive right to quiet enjoyment of the premises during the entirety of their lease.

The L&T act allows landlord right of entrance in emergencies.

The OFT have released a publication clarifying that any term that denies this is unfair.

No court has to my knowledge ever given a tenant a penalty for not allowing a viewing.

No deposit scheme has to my knowledge ever upheld a withholding of the deposit where a tenant denies viewings.

Yet you say I should do more research...fine but where....

tbh I would disregard anything jjlandlord says, apart from his inability to spell he often makes statements he cannot justify.....but expects us to take them as fact.

jjlandlord

zarf2007 wrote: »

tbh I would disregard anything jjlandlord says, apart from his inability to spell he often makes statements he cannot justify.....but expects us to take them as fact.

I thought unjustified statements expected to be taken as facts were the speciality of this forum...

The point of many of my posts is just to contradict the 'advice' given so that, hopefully, the OPs decide to find reliable sources.

People on here advise much too often to ignore the tenancy agreement without having read it or understanding enough of the topic.

Pleez ekcuse me spellin.

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

I thought unjustified statements expected to be taken as facts were the speciality of this forum...

The point of many of my posts is just to contradict the 'advice' given so that, hopefully, the OPs decide to find reliable sources.

Pleez ekcuse me spellin.

jjlandlord, I actually appreciate your posts and usually find you bang on the mark.

On this topic I am also open for a debate and will happily back down if there is evidence to the contrary of what I believe.

However I have shown why I make the statements that I have, which I think are pretty well researched. However you clearly think I am missing something so obvious you don't feel the need to provide any evidence to support your point.

I am not seeking any dispute, after all all we really want to do is help the poster. I make my advice based on my experience and research, I would be really grateful if when you disagree you provide the evidence.

It's not very nice when people just say your points are 'rubbish' (know it wasn't you that said this) but then can not back this claim up.

rabster

Read paras 3.32 and 3.33 of the OFT doc to which pyueck has linked.

It says that clauses which reserve "excessive" rights to allow viewings etc may be unfair. The word excessive is even in bold. This categorically does NOT mean that any clause which requires the tenant to allow viewings is unfair or unenforceable. As usual, it is a matter of degree depending on the individual case.