Landlady putting house on market

pyueck

I disagree with your reading. The previous paragraph makes it quite clear what excessive is:

Under any kind of lease or tenancy, a landlord is required by common law to allow his tenants 'exclusive possession' and 'quiet enjoyment' of the premises during the tenancy. In other words, tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant's consent, except for good reason.

jjlandlord

pyueck wrote: »

Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant's consent, except for good reason.

In addition, the frequency of access must surely be a factor.

G_M

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

I am familiar with the OFT guiadance.

Are you? It does not support your claim. In particular I'd refer you to page 18

Rights of entry to the property

3.32 We would object to a provision giving the landlord an excessive right to enter the rented property. Under any kind of lease or tenancy, a landlord is required by common law to allow his tenants 'exclusive possession' and 'quiet enjoyment' of the premises during the tenancy. In other words, tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant's consent, except for good reason.

Bold = OFT emphasis
Underline = my emphasis

Also page 78

Rights of entry to property
Unfair term
To permit intending purchasers, tenants or others authorised by the landlord or its agents in writing to enter and inspect the premises at all reasonable times.

Way of revising term
On giving the tenant at least 24 hours notice in writing, to allow the landlord, or any person acting on behalf of the landlord, access to view the property, during normal working hours, accompanying a prospective tenant or purchaser of the property.

It is clear that reasonable clauses limiting the tenants right to Quiet Enjoyment' are acceptable to the OFT. It is also clear that a reasonable right of access exists for the purposes of viewings by prospective tenants & buyers.

Your simplistic statement that "A tenants right to quiet enjoyment will always trump any clause to allow viewings." is erroneous and misleading.

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

In addition, the frequency of access must surely be a factor.

Jj it goes on to say why a landlord should be given access and therefore where a term will not be unfair. It doesn't include the landlord showing people around...

A term dealing with rights of entry is unlikely to be challenged if it reflects the ordinary legal position. This recognises that a landlord who is responsible for carrying out repairs to the property needs reasonable access for two specific purposes: firstly, in order to check whether repairs are necessary,19 and secondly, to carry them out.20 Reasonable access means access at reasonable times, and with at least 24 hours notice in writing, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

pyueck

G_M wrote: »

I am familiar with the OFT guiadance.

Are you? It does not support your claim. In particular I'd refer you to page 18
Bold = OFT emphasis
Underline = my emphasis

Also page 78

It is clear that reasonable clauses limiting the tenants right to Quiet Enjoyment' are acceptable to the OFT. It is also clear that a reasonable right of access exists for the purposes of viewings by prospective tenants & buyers.

Your simplistic statement that "A tenants right to quiet enjoyment will always trump any clause to allow viewings." is erroneous and misleading.

I completely agree with this. However a tenant can simply say no to every visit and there is nothing legally a landlord can do. As I have said all along a tenant should act reasonably with the landlord. However there is no right for the landlord to enter the property, if a tenant says no, unless in an emergency.

jjlandlord

pyueck wrote: »

However there is no right for the landlord to enter the property, if a tenant says no, unless in an emergency.

If there is a covenant that the landlord may enter for a specific purpose upon, say, 24 hour notice, what is the basis for the claim that the tenant can say 'no' but not in an emergency?

pyueck

Jj - any landlord that comes into a property without the tenants permission would likely fall foul of the protection from eviction act 1977. This is a criminal offense. See part 1, 3a, which makes it clear that it is an offence for a landlord or agent to interfere with the peace and comfort of the tenant.

A tenant that has their quiet enjoyment breached can also claim damages under common law.

I readily admit that it is unlikely that the cps or tenant would take these actions, however I stand by the point that a landlord has no right to show people round and if a tenant refuses there is little a landlord can do.

I would also stand by that a tenant should never feel bullied into allowing viewings that disturb their enjoyment of a property which they are paying rent for.

pmlindyloo

This is really a pointless discussion as even the 'experts' disagree about it (just google for the many articles about this)

The truth of the matter is that until either a tenant or a landlord takes it to court and a decision is made then the discussion will go round and round in circles.

What is much more important for the OP and others who raise this question is that it is up to an individual as to whether they allow viewings or not.

Certainly in the OP's case then the time frame of asking for viewings is not reasonable ( a phrase that is often used ). Whether a tenant chooses to allow viewings in the final one/two months is up to them.

Refusal to allow viewings can only be contested in court and by the time this is done then the tenant is usually long gone and is often why landlords do not bother to 'test' this in court.

I have always been of the opinion that landlords should not try to sell their house during the tenancy without either offering some form of compensation or after the tenant has left.

jjlandlord

pyueck wrote: »

Jj - any landlord that comes into a property without the tenants permission would likely fall foul of the protection from eviction act 1977.

That might be the case depending on the circumstances, but in general it would just be trespassing.

However, if the landlord has a right of entry, i.e. permission, how could he be trespassing?

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

That might be the case depending on the circumstances, but in general it would just be trespassing.

However, if the landlord has a right of entry, i.e. permission, how could he be trespassing?

If a landlord has permission there is no issue at all.

I agree with the previous poster this is all a pretty worthless debate as we will never agree.

For the vast majority of tenants I would advise allow viewings so long as you are comfortable with them and the landlord gives you notice. Sometimes a tenant will decide to refuse either because of a bad relationship with the landlord, they are genuinely using the property and don't want to be disturbed or maybe that they feel vulnerable to opening the door to strangers.

As always compromise on both sides is the winner and a bit of common sense. All my point is, is that tenants should not be bullied into letting people they don't want in their home or, as is often more the issue 'presenting the house'.

For the OP I would say that the best course it to be honest to the landlord about what is acceptable and can you come to some agreement. For me what would not be acceptable in three visits a week for the next four months into my home.