Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

You mean because they are incorporated under Royal Charter?

I do wonder about that - whether the issue with TVL is that they are ultimately the Queen's foot soldiers, with all the difficult constitutional implications of that.

The other aspect of their status is FOI - they really don't seem to like FOI, and I'm sure that if they thought they could escape the whole thing by not being a public authority, they would.

matttye

Celifein wrote: »

If you reinstate the original lock when you leave, is it still considered damage (in this alteration sense)? Or if you replace the lock with an equal or better lock and give the landlord the new keys when you leave? In those cases, the landlord hasn't had to pay to put anything right, so what are they claiming for?

In your example, could the Council have claimed damages if the painters had cleaned the pavement themselves?

Criminal offences usually require two ingredients - actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind).

The mens rea for damage is an intention to destroy or damage property belonging to another or being reckless as to whether such property is destroyed or damaged.

The actus reus of damage would usually take place at the point that the lock is removed, but there is an argument IMO that the property belongs to/is in the control of the tenant and therefore the property 'belongs' to them whilst they are a tenant. This would accord with the decision in Turner (no. 2) as posted above.

There is also a statutory defence available which is belief in the consent of the owner. If a tenant believed his landlord would consent to his changing the locks, then he would have a defence.

Finally there is a defence of belief that the property is in immediate need of protection. This is to cover those cases where for e.g. someone throws red wine on someone's coat because it is on fire.

Ordinarily breakages and what not would be covered by the tenancy agreement. It is arguable that the landlord consents to damage being caused so long as you pay for it either by not having your deposit returned or in some other way.

Finally, there are public interest considerations. Can you imagine the courts having to deal with cases where someone has come in drunk and knocked a cup off the side, breaking it?

From a quick Google search I can only find criminal cases involving damage caused by tenants after the end of the tenancy.

silverwhistle

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.

In what way does this help the debate? I think we've established that the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the law will be a judge, and that a strict reading doesn't help us. Proving the changing of a lock at a particular point in time really would be difficult for a landlord, he'd have to prove loss and thye claim might possibly be regarded as vexatious.

Allowing access for an overdue Gas inspection will be regarded completely differently to access which purely suits the convenience of the landlord, particularly when the tenant has suggested reasonable alternatives.

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

In what way does this help the debate? I think we've established that the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the law will be a judge...

Yes... but not to the exclusion of all other discussion, comment and/or advice. Especially when there is a certain amount of apparent misinformation around.

Proving the changing of a lock at a particular point in time really would be difficult for a landlord, he'd have to prove loss and thye claim might possibly be regarded as vexatious.

Yes. We've already discussed the practical difficulties of proof.

Allowing access for an overdue Gas inspection will be regarded completely differently to access which purely suits the convenience of the landlord, particularly when the tenant has suggested reasonable alternatives.

Generally speaking, although there is the concept of lawful excuse and mitigation, the law tends to regard all infractions as independent of each other. Therefore damaging the LL's property is not a reasonable or lawful reaction to the LL's errors with regards to his rights of access. There is a correct way to deal with that, and that is what the tenant should do.

prosaver

http://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/guidance-to-access-to-properties.shtml s

sorry to be a spoil sport...i think this mean the landlords need permission, otherwise its harassment .

Cornucopia

prosaver wrote: »

http://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/guidance-to-access-to-properties.shtml s

sorry to be a spoil sport...i think this mean the landlords need permission, otherwise its harassment .

It doesn't say that.

prosaver

Ive read it agian and its like, yes.....and...no.....answer
thats lawyer's for ya ..lol or cry

Cornucopia

It's not very well written in the sense that you need to know certain things in order to be able to read between the lines to the necessary degree.

The most obvious example being this: "Entry without the tenant's permission unless you have the right to do so, is a trespass..." which is true, but the "right to do so" is reasonably extensive, rendering the overall statement somewhat misleading.

It would be more accurate to say: LL's have certain rights of entry usually with notice, and can also seek permission from tenants for entry under other circumstances. Entry outside those terms could be trespass and/or harassment.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's not very well written in the sense that you need to know certain things in order to be able to read between the lines to the necessary degree.

The most obvious example being this: "Entry without the tenant's permission unless you have the right to do so, is a trespass..." which is true, but the "right to do so" is reasonably extensive, rendering the overall statement somewhat misleading.

It would be more accurate to say: LL's have certain rights of entry usually with notice, and can also seek permission from tenants for entry under other circumstances. Entry outside those terms could be trespass and/or harassment.

Should of course be noted that perfectly legal activities can amount to harassment (in fact most often cases are something which is typically legal)


Calls and texts are the most common actions in cases of harassment.


Contact which was once ok, becomes not ok, and leads eventually to claims of harassment. Which is why I would always say that reasonableness is the key.


It's great that your contract says something, which was ok a year ago, but now it might not be.


But that's just my opinion.

mrginge

Cornucopia wrote: »

It would be more accurate to say: LL's have certain rights of entry usually with notice, and can also seek permission from tenants for entry under other circumstances. Entry outside those terms could be trespass and/or harassment.

8 pages to reach a conclusion of -

landlords may or may not be allowed to do stuff sometimes.