Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

Cornucopia

mrginge wrote: »

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

I think you are being pedantic. The meaning was clear to me - albeit that it was expressed with a degree of ironic hyperbole.

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

Well he went on to thank me for it.

I'm not sure I did criticise his logic or agree explicitly with what he said.

Let me be clear: the position of "let the Courts deal with me as they will when I commit an offence I feel justified in committing" is a pragmatic one, and ultimately what adults must sometimes do.

However, there is a parallel and possibly more moral position which says: "try to avoid breaking the law", with the corollary in this context that you need to have a basic idea of what the law says about a particular set of circumstances in order to avoid breaking it.

Miss_Samantha

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

Hi Cornucopia,

As for nearly all topics discussed on public forums, people disagree and express pretty much every possible opinions.
This is not mean that the answer should be 'maybe'.

The definition of 'criminal damage' was quoted earlier, but the poster failed to emphasised the important points.

First, there must be damage (obviously). Correctly changing locks does not damage the door. It does not affect the value of performance of the door, even temporarily.

Now, even if damage is caused, there must be criminal intent, which for criminal damage is essentially damaging on purpose.

Therefore, whilst changing the locks might be a breach of the lease, it is hard to see how it could ever be criminal.

Miss_Samantha

NewShadow wrote: »

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)

Obviously, but that does not change the overall position.

For example:
- Can I drive a car if I have a driving licence?
The general answer is 'yes'.

But I am sure that if the question was asked here. Someone will reply 'not necessarily' because he read that one cannot drive whilst drunk, or that 'it depends' as one also must be insured, and have the consent of the car's owner, etc.
Then, the conclusion might be 'maybe' or 'only a judge can decide' because it is a difficult question.

Cornucopia

And another characteristic of public forum debate is to go over the same point several times, which is certainly what has happened here.

We've already agreed (I think) that the offence of Criminal Damage requires that Damage or Destruction has been caused by Wilful Intent or Negligence.

Since modifying a lock barrel is a practical task, it's possible to imagine it being done more or less professionally, more or less successfully, with retention of parts (that are the property of the LL) being an important consideration.

Hence my use of the word "maybe".

In the basic situation outlined by HappyMJ in the post above, where he is ambivalent to the fate of the discarded lock barrel, then the offence is potentially made out - the Wilful Intent is the intention to change the barrel and discard the old one; the Destruction is the disposal of the old barrel; and there is potential for Damage (to the lock, to the new barrel and to the door) if the job is done badly and/or Negligently.

Whether, as he says, it makes a plausible or potentially successful case in Court is another matter entirely, not least because there may well be doubt over who did it, when and why, and also to the true value of the LL's loss in the event that the new barrel is one of equal or better quality to the old one.

mrginge

My God.

Miss Samantha is now arguing against cornucopia using the exact same logic that cornucopia used in post #50.

Cornucopia

mrginge wrote: »

My God.

Miss Samantha is now arguing against cornucopia using the exact same logic that cornucopia used in post #50.

Really? I don't think I've said anything significantly different in posts 50 & 103.

Hopefully 106 clarifies my thinking.

I have to say that I find the discussion fascinating. These questions of legal detail often are.

WolfSong2000

Well...a little update. Viewer could eventually "miraculously" make it at a convenient time after I reminded the letting agent that entering property without my permission was illegal (council confirmed this when I calld them and suggested I contact CAB, which I have).

Bumped into neighbour just now who asked me what was going on as she has seen letting agents letting themselves in during the day (both alone and also to conduct viewings) which i was completely unaware of! !!!!ed off does not even begin to cover how I am feeling right now.

thesaint

silvercar wrote: »

If tenant refused access when they weren't present and landlord didn't enter without tenant's consent, landlord would never find out the lock barrel had been changed.

Therefore the only way landlord would know the barrel had been changed would be if he breached the tenant's rights.

Or am I missing something?

I think you are missing something.
What "tenants rights" would be breached?

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

A landlord may not enter without permission.
BUT, permission may be given through a clause in the tenancy agreement.

The 1985 landlord and tenant act gives the landlord authority(but not for viewings) even if not stated in the tenancy agreement.

The reason I asked what the agreement said earlier was to find out what had been agreed(if anything). One party can't then just decide to not agree.

AdrianC

The right to quiet enjoyment of their home.

dancingfairy

Landlord has a right to enter for maintenance and so on.
You have a right to quiet enjoyment of your property you are paying good money for.
Clearly it's best if everyone can meet in the middle and be amicable about such things but clearly in your case they are taking the Mick.
Change the barrel of the lock it you can (google it)
Send a letter to the landlord and letting agents and explain that you are feeling harassed in your own home and that you have had to change the locks.
If they tried to get in then clearly they can't then. If they wish to be silly about it they could take you to court and explain to the judge why they have been harassing you (and the judge will most likely kick them out and give them a telling off).
Df