Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

Cornucopia

NewShadow wrote: »

Just to reiterate - that's not how our (UK) legal system works.

Law isn't a matter of fact, it's a matter of interpretation and precedent.

I understand how it works. However, one of the features of a civil society is that we all have more or less the same basic understanding of basic principles.That those basic understandings are ultimately less than 100% accurate and subject to much more detailed analysis in Court is to be expected. However the basic principles are important and it makes sense to get them right rather than get them wrong.

The point is moot, anyway. Posters are not saying there should be no interpretation, and no assertions of "fact". They just want it to be theirs. Understandable, but illogical, and just another fairly transparent attempt to skew the playing field - it happens a lot on the interweb.

What is finally determined to be right or wrong could all come down to how obnoxious the judge finds one of the parties involved...

Let's hope it's a bit more considered than that.

Thank you btw.

I'm finding this whole discussion very entertaining.

No problem. Happy to be of service.

The more substantive point is that there has been a traditional view of tenancy which was along the lines of: it's the LL's property, over which he/she retains basic ownership rights, subject to wide-ranging protection for the tenant and the tenancy that originate in Legislation. It's a classic model - historic common law rights modified by modern legislation.

For me, that's neat and tidy, and if anyone needs to understand the tenant's rights, they are there in legislation, or interpreted and summarised by various authorities (some more authoritative than others).

I'm familiar with "the question that breaks the model" from other areas of law. That the "locks" question should be such a question is fine with me - it's ultimately good to know that there is a potential issue. I would want to hold keys to tenanted properties for basic, practical reasons, and also to be able to access the property at the end of the tenancy without needing the additional expense of a locksmith. I'm not going to be unreasonable about it, though, and every tenant is different. If someone has a particular desire for "enhanced privacy", I'd be happy to accommodate that, potentially with the understanding that it doesn't modify my rights of access, and possibly holding a larger deposit to cover any "confusion" over keys at the end of the tenancy.

My issue, here, is that I don't like to see the legal basis of things "creep" like this. If the Government wants to change the property ownership basis of ASTs, that's fine. Have they done that? No, not AFAIK.

What seems to be happening is that there are some interventions by minor regulators, for example on fair terms in tenancy agreements. That's not an issue per se (but could be if that guidance becomes at odds with the basic principles). Some commentators (Tessa, for example) seem to be coming at this with a fundamentally different basic view, though, to do with a tenancy conferring property ownership rights. They are then extrapolating that to re-write lots of other considerations.

My intuition is that this is politically motivated (and is not really a true and fair examination of relevant law), and that at the extreme it is politically mischievous - seeking to change the legal situation by stealth and without authority. And we cannot have that - it ultimately helps no one, and it is fundamentally undemocratic.

HappyMJ

joshsw25 wrote: »

LEGAL: DESTROYING OR DAMAGING PROPERTY. CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971 SEC 1(PT) (1) “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged

the door is the property of the ll and is damaged (which includes altering)....it's a mute point and it's been taken way too far but the salient points remain.


Sensible thing to do is be reasonable and insist they do the same


If they don't, report them to the relevant bodies

That's the law. You need to have a lawful excuse.

My lawful excuse in changing the locks is to secure the property to my and my insurers satisfaction. My insurer requires me to have locks conforming to BS 3621. The landlord doesn't have to provide higher quality locks so I'll take the LL's cheap easy to bump, easy to pick locks out and put my BS 3621 locks in. I have to have them for insurance purposes. I can't be bothered storing the LL's old rubbish lock cylinder carefully and over the years it gets lost. It eventually gets binned. As long as I leave a lock cylinder at the end of the tenancy and give the LL the keys then it really doesn't matter if it was the original cylinder or not.

I'd like to see a court convict me of criminal damage for that.

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Hi NewShadow,

Indeed.

Luckily, the issue of access has existed for decades, if not centuries, and the legal position surrounding it is rather clear.

aaah you do tease us with your I-know-the-answer-but-not-telling-you comment.

Why not just spell it out and then we can close down this thread.

pmlindyloo

Talking of the legal position it is interesting to note that even the government's new model agreement for an assured shorthold tenancy and accompanying guidance has this included:

Disclaimer
This document is being made available free of charge to anyone wishing to use it,
and whilst every care has been taken in its preparation ultimately only a court can
decide on the legal effect and enforceability of contractual terms. The Government
cannot, therefore, guarantee the legal effect of this model agreement and shall not
be held responsible for the consequences of the use of, or reliance on, this model
agreement, including for any financial loss suffered by any landlord, tenant or other
person. If you are in any doubt as to the implications of using this document you
should seek independent legal advice.

Cornucopia

HappyMJ wrote: »

I'd like to see a court convict me of criminal damage for that.

Ah yes, we can all play the "they'll never convict me for that" game. Just prey you never come across the chap who believes that they'll never convict him for dealing violently with the person who "looks at him funny wearing a Minion costume".

The question was: COULD it be criminal damage. And the resounding answer seems to be maybe.

MM64

Fascinating thread,

No idea of the legal side of things but a moral point of view. -

If I was renting a property and paying a considerable amount of money for the privilege I would find it totally unreasonable for a LL to arrange viewings during my tenancy.

Surely the correct way would be to give the tenant notice at the end of the agreement and put the property up for sale only when the tenant has vacated the property.

If I had a LL and he told me he wanted to arrange viewings half way through my tenancy I would tell him to do 1 and arrange after I had left.

I would not hesitate to change the locks if I subsequently found he had arranged viewings in my absence.

At the end of the day it's your home and you pay a considerable amount of money so LLs should respect your privacy and think about the long term BEFORE letting it out for whatever duration.

Guest101

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Talking of the legal position it is interesting to note that even the government's new model agreement for an assured shorthold tenancy and accompanying guidance has this included:

Disclaimer
This document is being made available free of charge to anyone wishing to use it,
and whilst every care has been taken in its preparation ultimately only a court can
decide on the legal effect and enforceability of contractual terms. The Government
cannot, therefore, guarantee the legal effect of this model agreement and shall not
be held responsible for the consequences of the use of, or reliance on, this model
agreement, including for any financial loss suffered by any landlord, tenant or other
person. If you are in any doubt as to the implications of using this document you
should seek independent legal advice.

I said as much, apparently that was a cop out...

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

I said as much, apparently that was a cop out...

It was.

It's a cop-out when the Government does it too. In practice, the document the disclaimer relates to is very thorough, very detailed and is worded definitively. That it is ultimately subject to law and subject to challenge is simply stating the obvious.

NewShadow

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Luckily, the issue of access has existed for decades, if not centuries, and the legal position surrounding it is rather clear.

Subject to and dependent on the specifics of the individual case, interpretation of the reasonableness of the intent and actions of the parties involved, and consequences, actual damages, and losses incurred.

(actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)

mrginge

Cornucopia wrote: »

Ah yes, we can all play the "they'll never convict me for that" game. Just prey you never come across the chap who believes that they'll never convict him for dealing violently with the person who "looks at him funny".

The question was: COULD it be criminal damage. And the resounding answer seems to be maybe.

MJ didn't say that he would 'never' be convicted. He said he'd 'like to see' it - therefore implying a balance of probabilities.

So you criticise his logic for something that he didn't say, and then go on to agree with it.