Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

They are.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

So not unduly subject to judicial interpretation, then?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

Indeed - it tells us what the offence is, but not how it should be enforced.

There are a number of things that are missing from TV Licensing as an organisation, the main two being democratic accountability (successive Ministers have denied any) and clarity about the processes they wish to apply to the public, and their authority for them.

wolfplayer

There's so much pure nonsense on this thread, I can't believe it.

OP - go and see a solicitor.

matttye

Damage most definitely can include altering.

Damage is anything which requires money, time or effort to put right. An example is Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Hardman-v-Chief-Constable-of-Avon.php

The defendants had drawn silhouettes on the pavement in water soluble paints. The paint would have worn off after a few days wear but the council arranged to have the pavement cleaned.

Held:

As expense had been incurred to put the pavement back to its original condition, the painting did constitute damage.

There might be an argument that the property 'belongs' to the tenant during the course of the tenancy. See R v Turner (no. 2): http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Turner.php

It's a case about theft but it confirms that 'property belonging to another' can include people who are in possession and control of it rather than just the legal owner. Turner was found guilty of stealing his own car back from a garage which had just carried out repairs on it because he hadn't paid the bill.

Marktheshark

Damage in Legalese which is what all Law is written in means "to born loss"
To create a cost, a loss, a mischief that causes one party to suffer a loss of value .

Not the English version which means to smash something or break it, hence why compensation is known as "damages" .
You do not have to break something to cause criminal damage, just cost someone something they can quantify in money value.

Guest101

AdrianC wrote: »

What law isn't?





Not having a TV licence is a crime, so the ECHR allows the public authority (or those acting on the behalf of a public authority, to enter your premises if necessary to prevent that crime.

Neither TV licencing nor the BBC are public authority.


However, it is a crime and a court allows them entry via a warrant (just like the police, utilities, etc.).

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

Neither TV licencing nor the BBC are public authority.

The BBC is a public authority, or at least count themselves as one. They accept the principle that their enforcement activities are in scope of Article 8 - just not the implications.

TV Licensing is not a separate organisation from the BBC. Therefore anything that applies to the BBC in terms of governance also applies to TV Licensing. This is part of the problem - it's all very well for a broadcaster to be independent of Government, but not a good idea for a law enforcement "organisation".

However, it is a crime and a court allows them entry via a warrant (just like the police, utilities, etc.).

Not quite. The ability for the BBC to obtain a search warrant is specifically granted under S.366 of the Communications Act. It is not based on any general principle. There are, however, some issues with their interpretation and application of the Law, although the number of warrants is so small as to render it a largely moot point.

Cornucopia

Yes, this is a consideration, but I think a strict reading of the Law is that the act of "damage" or "destruction" takes place at a point in time, and it can either be proven at that point in time or not.

Does a shoplifter really escape prosecution because they give the goods back?

DaftyDuck

But, in extreme, that would mean a landlord had suffered "damage" by tenant not constantly keeping the place as clean as at check-in. No defence that it would be cleaned, just that LL faces a potential loss at surrender of tenancy. Those dishes in the sink, the dust on the floor, that hair on the stair... all chargeable damage.

Returning the place at conclusion of tenancy, locks replaced with originals (no "damage" to door from fitting a different size/type, mind), floors and walls as clean and undamaged.... that's the point at which a chargeable event would be assessed. If locks are replaced exactly as they were, there is no loss to the LL.

The only "point in time" in the case of a tenancy is at the conclusion of the tenancy.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, this is a consideration, but I think a strict reading of the Law is that the act of "damage" or "destruction" takes place at a point in time, and it can either be proven at that point in time or not.

Does a shoplifter really escape prosecution because they give the goods back?

But that doesn't address the issue of 'ownership', or temporary control, or whichever definition we're discussing now. Which I think is the key to all this.


A shoplifter does not escape prosecution, of course. However I don't think it's the best example.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

The BBC is a public authority, or at least count themselves as one. They accept the principle that their enforcement activities are in scope of Article 8 - just not the implications.

TV Licensing is not a separate organisation from the BBC. Therefore anything that applies to the BBC in terms of governance also applies to TV Licensing. This is part of the problem - it's all very well for a broadcaster to be independent of Government, but not a good idea for a law enforcement "organisation".

Not quite. The ability for the BBC to obtain a search warrant is specifically granted under S.366 of the Communications Act. It is not based on any general principle. There are, however, some issues with their interpretation and application of the Law, although the number of warrants is so small as to render it a largely moot point.

I'll concede to your expertise on this. I just meant that the BBC (and TV licencing as agents, provided by Capita) are not strictly speaking Public Authorities - though I agree often act as if they are.


I wasn't implying that the search warrant's are issued under the same sections of law, rather that power of entry is only available with a valid warrant.