Landlady putting house on market

jayson043

The landlord should start viewings once you have left. It's business, your not best friends.

dodger1

jayson043 wrote: »

The landlord should start viewings once you have left. It's business, your not best friends.

Of course that makes it worse for us tenants. Imagine if no tenants allowed viewings when they are moving through choice. We tenants would not be able to view until empty which causes a void of possibly one month for the LL.

Ahhh, poor LL you might say, no it means poor tenant because the rent will have to be increased to cover the voids.

What is needed is give and take between all concerned rather than pistols at ten paces.

G_M

ghostfinder wrote: »

thanks,

as i mentioned before the letting agent is excellent.

sadly, they seem to be following the LL demands.
they have litle choice. They work for the LL and must follow instructions (within the law of course)

we have a holiday booked just at the time when the viewings should be allowed. Would it be unreasonable to stop viewings for the 7 days we are away?

My 21 year old son will be at the house for the week

Thanks

there's your solution.

21 year son old alone in the house? After one viewing the agents will decide it's a waste of time to show any more prospective buyers round.........

ghostfinder

Sunday must be house hunting day:

Just had two people walk up the drive and peek around the place.

Managed to chat to them, the Agent has not told them its tenanted.

They were under the impression i was the seller.

Just going to post my letter directly to the agent about banning all viewings till May

G_M

ghostfinder wrote: »

Sunday must be house hunting day:

Just had two people walk up the drive and peek around the place.

Managed to chat to them, the Agent has not told them its tenanted.

They were under the impression i was the seller.

Just going to post my letter directly to the agent about banning all viewings till May

Did you tell them about the dry rot? and subsidence?

ghostfinder

i did get a bit agitated when the lady said " will you be going in july and is it a secure tenancy"

My reply was - " the bailiffs will be carrying me out in about November"

theGrinch

if you have enjoyed a good relationship thus far, then co-operate setting out your terms. be prepared for selling agent to ignore them now and then

franklee

ghostfinder wrote: »

Sunday must be house hunting day:

Just had two people walk up the drive and peek around the place.

Managed to chat to them, the Agent has not told them its tenanted.

They were under the impression i was the seller.

Just going to post my letter directly to the agent about banning all viewings till May

In addition suggest you start a dairy and make a note of these visits, date, time, that they came into the garden, peered in windows or whatever they did what was said etc. That way when it gets too much and you complain it's impacting your quiet enjoyment of the property you will have evidence to show when you ask for it to stop. No point in complaining if you don't have the facts to back it up. Quiet enjoyment extends to the grounds as well as inside and I bet they will leave the ad on rightmove etc so the speculative visits could continue.

franklee

A couple of useful links regarding allowing entry written by a solicitor expert in landlord law:

This is about entering for repairs but still worth reading:
Tenant is responsible for damage to neighbouring flat
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/02/10/tenant-is-responsible-for-damage-to-neighbouring-flat/
"The agents are right, if the tenant will not let them in, it will be unlawful for them to enter anyway, save in a case of real emergency (for example if the building is on fire). See this post here."

All about landlords rights to go into their tenants property
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2014/09/09/all-about-landlords-rights-to-go-into-their-tenants-property/

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

"The agents are right, if the tenant will not let them in, it will be unlawful for them to enter anyway, save in a case of real emergency (for example if the building is on fire). See this post here."

Interestingly, in the statutes the difference between emergencies and non-emergencies is just that there is no requirement to give notice in an emergency.
I have never got an explanation as to how that leads to the above interpretation.