Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

AdrianC

Josh... stop digging, mate.

fairy_lights

joshsw25 wrote: »

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.

The landlord has already served notice, so what's the worst that can happen?
They're not exactly going to phone the police and say 'My tenant has criminally damaged my property by changing the locks because I keep letting myself in without permission' are they?

joshsw25

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. - If the AST allows alterations to property it cannot be criminal....


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. - We have no Statute against murder, but we still convict people under common law. So to answer your question, yes. it is very relevant regardless of the date. It is one of the perks of a common law system.

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? - it applies to both. The property is never vested in the tenant and it is a commonly mistaken belief that it becomes temporarily the tenants property. he is not granted a right in rem under contract.

marksoton

joshsw25 wrote: »

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

I'm pretty sure case law and legal precedent has moved on since then.

HappyMJ

joshsw25 wrote: »

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))

There's a breach to the tenancy agreement but no loss has been caused to the landlord so nothing happens. It's pointless.

Guest101

joshsw25 wrote: »

To clarify I am not saying to the OP that definitively it will be classed as criminal damage. - To clarify what I'm saying is a breach of a civil contract does not give rise to a Criminal offence.


What I am saying is depending on the AST agreement, and in a worse case scenario, it could be. - What im saying is, a civil contract cannot create a criminal offence. It can be both, but not by vieute of a breach of contract.


Therefore it is not an action which he should consider without giving it the appropriate attention and checking his AST rights beforehand. - I'm glad no-one is paying for this 'advice'

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. - and should the tenant decide not to do so. The LL has a CIVIl recourse, either for an injunction or to claim for his or her 'loss', as breach of contract. There would be no 'loss', and therefore an injunction is the best case scenario. This is not guaranteed, the court would balance the contract with the tenants right to quiet enjoyment.


Be informed before you act is my advice

That is excellent advice!


I'd add 'by someone other than Josh, who claims to be a trainee solicitor,' between the words informed & before

DomRavioli

joshsw25 wrote: »

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

Again, do you have any actual law or evidence to back you up that relates specifically to ASTs and private residential tenancies?

There's no incidence of criminal damage for changing a lock, as long as you change it back when the tenancy ends (there is evidence for this, unlike any of your assumptions).

I would also like to know where you work as I also want to avoid it.

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. - If the AST allows alterations to property it cannot be criminal....
- Thought I'd colour coordinate to make it easier for people. A criminal offence cannot be created by virtue of a breach of 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. - We have no Statute against murder, but we still convict people under common law. So to answer your question, yes. it is very relevant regardless of the date. It is one of the perks of a common law system. - Murder is a common law offence, it requires no statute. Quoting a single case from over 160 years ago, does not mean that in those 160 years that case law has not be over-written. Perhaps by the creation of ASTs, perhaps by other cases. Something a judge can decide. The fact that the type of tenancy (legal interest in the property) did not exist at that time, and now it does and that is the interest the tenant now has, suggests that this would not apply.

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? - it applies to both. The property is never vested in the tenant and it is a commonly mistaken belief that it becomes temporarily the tenants property. he is not granted a right in rem under contract. - It cannot apply to both. One grants the tenant exclusive use of the property and the other doesn't. It's no mistake, that is exactly what it becomes, the tenants property. Much like a leasehold flat.

Nice try, but no cigar...

Guest101

This could of course all be settled.


Josh, I'll rent your property, change the locks and you contact the police, ok?


I've got £12.38 in my pocket, that'll cover my defence costs and 2 pints of lager and pack of crisps (outside London anyway...)

mrginge

joshsw25 wrote: »

Providing the time and reason is reasonable he is entitled to enter without permission having provided notice. It is not normally conducive to a good relationship so most won't.

Josh

Would you care to dig a bit deeper and give us your explanation of this one too?