Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

joshsw25

As a trainee solicitor, I assure you it is. In fact a shorthold tenant can't even paint the wall without permission so changing the locks is a no-no. He could require to you to have them immediately replaced again.

AdrianC

The landlord wants to sell the place - the reasons are irrelevant.
You are reluctant to allow viewings - the reasons are irrelevant.
There's really only one solution left for the landlord, isn't there...?

Guest101

joshsw25 wrote: »

As a trainee solicitor, I assure you it is. In fact a shorthold tenant can't even paint the wall without permission so changing the locks is a no-no. He could require to you to have them immediately replaced again.

Care to back up your claim with some sections of law?


No? Didn't think so. However I'd love to know the name of your firm, so I can avoid it like the plague.


The tenant has a lease for the whole property. It is his or hers for the duration of the lease. If the tenant wants to install a slide throughout the property, paint it in a rainbow and remove all the doors - they can do. As long as it is returned to how it was when the tenancy ends.


The LL may have rights under contract to have them replaced - That is not criminal damage though!

mrginge

joshsw25 wrote: »

As a trainee solicitor, I assure you it is. In fact a shorthold tenant can't even paint the wall without permission so changing the locks is a no-no. He could require to you to have them immediately replaced again.

Once again, please quote the appropriate law.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Once again, please quote the appropriate law.

Hey we agree on something!!

joshsw25

As I have previously stated, it could be criminal damage (this of course depends on the AST contract.


A Coleridge J in Bishop v Elliott [1855] declared:


With respect to locks and keys, bolts, and bars, there can be no question, whether properly called fixtures or not, that the tenant cannot remove them; they are as much part of the house, and to go with it, as the doors or windows to which they may be attached or belong … (Coleridge, J)


This means then, that if the AST does not allow for such amendments to be made to the property, it could be criminal damage (Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2))

DaftyDuck

Now, I openly and repeatedly admit I know s0d-all about the law, despite being a landlord.
But even I know

As a trainee solicitor, I assure you it is. In fact a shorthold tenant can't even paint the wall without permission so changing the locks is a no-no. He could require to you to have them immediately replaced again

is utter rollocks.

Reason I get away with knowing absolutely nowt is I use a solicit.... ah! Um... maybe I'll reread G_M's stickies....

Guest101

joshsw25 wrote: »

As I have previously stated, it could be criminal damage (this of course depends on the AST contract. - No it doesn't depend on the contract in the slightest. Criminal damage is a criminal offence, it is not created by breach of a civil contract.


A Coleridge J in Bishop v Elliott [1855] declared:


With respect to locks and keys, bolts, and bars, there can be no question, whether properly called fixtures or not, that the tenant cannot remove them; they are as much part of the house, and to go with it, as the doors or windows to which they may be attached or belong … (Coleridge, J) - ASTs were only introduced in 1988, this case can therefore have no relevance to a type of contract that did not exist at the time.

This means then, that if the AST does not allow for such amendments to be made to the property, it could be criminal damage (Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2)) - Refers to licensees, rather than tenants does it not?

I'll counter:


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/contents


Criminal Damage Act - clearly states the offence is damaging or destroying property of another.


1: the property is temporarily the tenants, however even if this argument is not followed
2: the lock is neither damaged nor destroyed.

Money_maker

Guest101 wrote: »

As long as it is returned to how it was when the tenancy ends.

This is all you need to know Josh.

joshsw25

To clarify I am not saying to the OP that definitively it will be classed as criminal damage.


What I am saying is depending on the AST agreement, and in a worse case scenario, it could be.


Therefore it is not an action which he should consider without giving it the appropriate attention and checking his AST rights beforehand.

Some landlords are more understanding than others, and some will expressly exclude any alterations to the property and expect it to remain in the condition in which it was let.


Be informed before you act is my advice