New AST contract

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

You are proving my point that you are basing your so-called 'interpretation' on your feeling of what the position should be rather than the legal position.

I have in fact researched the issue of quiet enjoyment. Have you?

The legal position is that a right of access does not breach quiet enjoyment.
As such there is no conflicting rights, but only excessive and unreasonable use of the right.

There would be an issue if the right of access was excessive and unreasonable however in this case it is a right created by law.

I have always said that I would be happy to change my position, but that would require that someone provides a legal reference.
No-one has ever done so and I am therefore still waiting.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

You are proving my point that you are basing your so-called 'interpretation' on your feeling of what the position should be rather than the legal position.

I have in fact researched the issue of quiet enjoyment. Have you?

The legal position is that a right of access does not breach quiet enjoyment.
As such there is no conflicting rights, but only excessive and unreasonable use of the right.

There would be an issue if the right of access was excessive and unreasonable however in this case it is a right created by law.

I have always said that I would be happy to change my position, but that would require that someone provides a legal reference.
No-one has ever done so and I am therefore still waiting.

I presume you mean by 'legal reference' - case law?

I have also researched quiet enjoyment, tenancy laws, rights of access etc etc. The result is ALOT of legislation which isnt straightforward.

I also dont actually disagree that in theory a right of access exists. But more that the right is not absolute.

It is not a feeling of what it should be, it is an interpretation of various laws, which in various instances go back a long time. End up contradictory, or atleast conflicting. The laws are also written in language which, when read as written is different to read as intended.

The point is that, physically in practical terms, the OP changes the locks. What then? You have a right of access, you go to court to enforce it. Maybe judge agrees, maybe he/she doesnt.

A right of access does not breach quiet enjoyment, i'll agree with you on that point. Exercising that right, might.

I'm a LL, I give notice of 24hrs twice a week, for 3 months. Is that a breach?
You may argue on paper, no. I have abided by your right.
But my right now comes into conflict of harassment laws.

There is nothing absolute. and just like you will say quiet enjoyment is not absolute, neither is the right of access.

jjlandlord

Read my post again. You are just repeating what I wrote, so I am happy that you agree with me. You must have changed your mind since post #8.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

Read my post again. You are just repeating what I wrote, so I am happy that you agree with me. You must have changed your mind since post #8.

I dont think I'm entirely agreeing with you.

I'm saying that there is:

Either: a contractual right
Or: a statutory right

However it is not absolute. and certainly the tenant has the right to say no, and to change the locks.

A court can then decide.

But i've never said LLs have no rights.

pyueck

Guest101 wrote: »

I dont think I'm entirely agreeing with you.

I'm saying that there is:

Either: a contractual right
Or: a statutory right

However it is not absolute. and certainly the tenant has the right to say no, and to change the locks.

A court can then decide.

But i've never said LLs have no rights.

Sorry to weigh in, but quiet enjoyment is not statutory or contractual but common law

Guest101

pyueck wrote: »

Sorry to weigh in, but quiet enjoyment is not statutory or contractual but common law

I wasnt talking about quiet enjoyment, but rather the right of access of a landlord, which can be either contractual, or statutory, or both.

dini_2

Doesn't pretty much most of it come down to common law these days, so it depends on a judges interpretation of a previous judges interpretation???

Anyway, the flat is lovely, the agents have been pretty good (so far) and the landlord is looking for a long let. (I've got a 2 yr tenancy)
I am not an awkward tenant and have always had a good relationship with my previous landlords.
It looks like the tenancy contract is a bog standard one to cover everything. (Including potted plants/furniture)

I just am not keen on the bit about them being allowed to enter the flat when I'm not there unless an emergency. I wouldnt stop them going in if needed, but I would rather be there, thats all.
The contract doesnt say anything about changing the locks, just that I need landlords permission to get extra keys cut.

The agent did say when she was showing me round, that they have had very little contact with the previous tenant. So the impression I get is that they don't interfere unless they have to - Presumably the inspections and gas safety etc.