New AST contract

dini_2

I'm just about to move into a new flat. Everything is sorted just need to do check in.
I've just been sent the contract, and I've noticed this paragraph:

That the Landlord or any person authorised by the Landlord or his Agent may at reasonable times of the day on giving 24 hours' notice (unless in the case of an emergency) enter the Property for the purpose of viewing, inspecting its condition and state of repair and carry out any necessary repairs FURTHER such access by the Landlord or any person authorised by the Landlord or his Agent may be carried out with or without the Tenant being present AND for the avoidance of doubt the Tenant shall NOT have the right to insist that the aforementioned access to the property may only take place with the Tenant being present AND this shall be extended to Clause 5.26 contained herein

I'm not that comfortable with the bit about the tenant shall not have the right to insist on being present.
For the record, I don't foresee any issue with having the place inspected, and have no problems whatsoever with the agents coming to inspect, I am just uncomfortable with anyone being in my home when I am not there unless there is a very good reason.

Is this clause enforceable? (Clause 5.26 is about having viewings when I move on)

Thanks in advance.

Guest101

dini wrote: »

I'm just about to move into a new flat. Everything is sorted just need to do check in.
I've just been sent the contract, and I've noticed this paragraph:

That the Landlord or any person authorised by the Landlord or his Agent may at reasonable times of the day on giving 24 hours' notice (unless in the case of an emergency) enter the Property for the purpose of viewing, inspecting its condition and state of repair and carry out any necessary repairs FURTHER such access by the Landlord or any person authorised by the Landlord or his Agent may be carried out with or without the Tenant being present AND for the avoidance of doubt the Tenant shall NOT have the right to insist that the aforementioned access to the property may only take place with the Tenant being present AND this shall be extended to Clause 5.26 contained herein

I'm not that comfortable with the bit about the tenant shall not have the right to insist on being present.
For the record, I don't foresee any issue with having the place inspected, and have no problems whatsoever with the agents coming to inspect, I am just uncomfortable with anyone being in my home when I am not there unless there is a very good reason.

Is this clause enforceable? (Clause 5.26 is about having viewings when I move on)

Thanks in advance.

Suggest you change the locks in that case.

No ifs, no buts, just do it

pyueck

This is not a fair contract term. You can sign it if you want as is not enforceable, but I would get it changed to prevent conflict down the line.

There was a long debate on a landlord's right of access to viewings yesterday, which I don't really want to re-start.

Guest101

pyueck wrote: »

This is not a fair contract term. You can sign it if you want as is not enforceable, but I would get it changed to prevent conflict down the line.

There was a long debate on a landlord's right of access to viewings yesterday, which I don't really want to re-start.

I agree, it starts every time.

The simple solution is change the locks. If the LL wants to change them back, he would need a court order and this clause can then be checked.

I agree it's not enforceable. However that wont prevent someone from trying, which just leads to more problems. much simpler to change the locks and not worry about it.

G_M

If you dont like the clause

option 1 - cross it out, initial the crossing out, then sign. Ideally do the same with the copy the landlord signs and gives you

option 2 - just sign. As /when/if it becomes an issue down the line, change the locks and expect arguments, legal or otherwise

jjlandlord

What exactly is not a fair or an unenforceable term?

That the Landlord or any person authorised by the Landlord or his Agent may at reasonable times of the day on giving 24 hours' notice (unless in the case of an emergency) enter the Property for the purpose of viewing, inspecting its condition and state of repair and carry out any necessary repairs

This term is a repeat of the implied term included by law. Therefore clearly not unfair or unenforceable.

The rest is the logical consequence of that term, though it would be sensible to agree a mutually convenient time.
If the tenant wishes to be there it would be up to him to take time off work or to pay the extra cost of having the inspection/repair carried out on a weekend.

In effect, if this clause wasn't there the situation wouldn't change much apart from viewings for potential buyers/tenants (which I understand is what clause 5.26 is).

dini_2

I've looked into this, ( a lot), and changing the locks without landlords permission is not that straightforward.

Was directed to a site where a barrister who deals with property law was commented on the issue.
See the comments part :
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/03/07/tenants-legal-help-when-the-police-unjustly-support-your-landlord/

Its the bit about I cannot insist they only access when I am there.
Getting time off work never a problem. My job means I can work from home if I have to.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

What exactly is not a fair or an unenforceable term?



This term is a repeat of the implied term included by law. Therefore clearly not unfair or unenforceable.

The rest is the logical consequence of that term, though it would be sensible to agree a mutually convenient time.
If the tenant wishes to be there it would be up to him to take time off work or to pay the extra cost of having the inspection/repair carried out on a weekend.

Often our interpretations differ, and this is no different.

Instead of getting into further debate. You have your opinion - which is that the term is fair.

I'll have mine, which is that it isnt fair.

And the OP can choose. and if necessary the LL can ask a court to enforce the term, should the OP change the locks.

Guest101

dini wrote: »

I've looked into this, ( a lot), and changing the locks without landlords permission is not that straightforward.

Was directed to a site where a barrister who deals with property law was commented on the issue.
See the comments part :
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/03/07/tenants-legal-help-when-the-police-unjustly-support-your-landlord/

Its the bit about I cannot insist they only access when I am there.
Getting time off work never a problem. My job means I can work from home if I have to.

It really is, you can a screw driver and take out the old lock, put your lock in.

on that debate a solicitor and a barrister debate the topic. The barrister is not a specialist in housing law, the solicitor is.

Really that is of no consequence though, as a court can decide if you can or cannot change the locks.

not to sound to demeaning, but you havent looked at it alot if thats the post your quoting.

Heres another one, just as valid:
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/01/13/do-tenants-own-the-property-they-rent/

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

Often our interpretations differ, and this is no different.

The problem is that my interpretation is based on the exact wording of the implied term which is that the "landlord has a right of access upon 24 hour notice".
Whereas your 'interpretation' is in fact just your personal opinion.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

The problem is that my interpretation is based on the exact wording of the implied term which is that the "landlord has a right of access upon 24 hour notice".
Whereas your 'interpretation' is in fact just your personal opinion.

No the problem is that your interpretation is based on your position as a landlord ( who in some cases rightly wants to look out for his investment ) but choose to place less emphasis on quiet enjoyment.

Whereas I, from a non landlord perspective, feel that sometimes there is a too much intrusion on the lives of tenants, who are in essence leaseholders and where LLs really need to be more courteous.

Neither of us is wrong necessarily - and I did point this out. A court can decide what the correct answer is, and presumebly, neither of us is a judge.