Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

joshsw25

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to do that


A criminal offence cannot be created by virtue of a breach of contract. - That is not my contention. A criminal offence can be a breach of contract though. If I have a contract to supply you with a cruise from Dover to Calais, and my negligence kills you, I have both broken my contract because I have not delivered you in Calais as a result of negligence. Further, I could be liable for homicide offences.

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. - You are forgetting that criminal damage is also at it's heart a common law offence (as is most of the criminal law). It matters not when AST's were created, it depends on the actus reus of the offence. If the tenant is not contractually allowed to alter property, he could be seen to be criminally altering it - the contract acts as consent should it allow alteration.

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. - - Again this is a mistake. The leasehold owner never owns the property. He owns a possessory interest in the property with the freeholder retaining the reversionary interest. Although he has a right in rem, the property is strictly speaking never owned by the leaseholder.

joshsw25

I will do later when my books are to hand

Guest101

joshsw25 wrote: »

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to do that - No probs.


A criminal offence cannot be created by virtue of a breach of contract. - That is not my contention. A criminal offence can be a breach of contract though. - Yes a criminal offence and also be a breach of contract, however a breach of contract cannot on it's own be a criminal offence. If I have a contract to supply you with a cruise from Dover to Calais, and my negligence kills you, I have both broken my contract because I have not delivered you in Calais as a result of negligence. Further, I could be liable for homicide offences. - Yes, in theory. Two separate cases arising from the same situation. Criminal prosecution for failing to adhere to whatever regulation or duty of care you have. Civil remedy for the breach of contract.

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. - You are forgetting that criminal damage is also at it's heart a common law offence (as is most of the criminal law). - True, however the law was clearly amalgamated in the act of 1971, if the intention of parliament was to include anything else, they would have done so at that time. It matters not when AST's were created, - It does. As legal precedent would not be applicable. For example a case law relating to a lodger, would not apply in the same way to a tenant. The base facts are different. it depends on the actus reus of the offence. If the tenant is not contractually allowed to alter property, he could be seen to be criminally altering it - the contract acts as consent should it allow alteration. - No because a breach of contract is a CIVIL matter. Which you should know. And a breach of contract has two outcomes. Court to enforce the contract, and court to recoup losses as to the breach of contract. There are no losses in this case.

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. - - Again this is a mistake. The leasehold owner never owns the property. He owns a possessory interest in the property with the freeholder retaining the reversionary interest. Although he has a right in rem, the property is strictly speaking never owned by the leaseholder.

Correct, however both a leaseholder and a tenant under an AST own a lease, which grants them (in various forms) sole and exclusive use of the property. The whole property. Not bits of it. Not the carpet and the lamp, but not the locks. Everything.


The freeholder gives up some of their rights (varies from type of lease) in exchange for monetary gain.


For the purposes of this discussion, the tenant has rented the lock, the landlord is being paid by the tenant. The tenant removed the lock and keeps it safe, returning it when the lease expires.


the LL has no claim to the lock, as he is being paid for his loss of right to use the lock.

Guest101

To clarify I am definitely not a trainee solicitor.


I wish I was a professional 'opinionated sod', but no-one will pay me for it!

marksoton

joshsw25 wrote: »

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to do that


A criminal offence cannot be created by virtue of a breach of contract. - That is not my contention. A criminal offence can be a breach of contract though. If I have a contract to supply you with a cruise from Dover to Calais, and my negligence kills you, I have both broken my contract because I have not delivered you in Calais as a result of negligence. Further, I could be liable for homicide offences.
Bad analogy as maritime (Admiralty) law would prevail.

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. - You are forgetting that criminal damage is also at it's heart a common law offence (as is most of the criminal law). It matters not when AST's were created, it depends on the actus reus of the offence. If the tenant is not contractually allowed to alter property, he could be seen to be criminally altering it - the contract acts as consent should it allow alteration.
Good luck getting that offence through...
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. - - Again this is a mistake. The leasehold owner never owns the property. He owns a possessory interest in the property with the freeholder retaining the reversionary interest. Although he has a right in rem, the property is strictly speaking never owned by the leaseholder.

The point you are missing here is there would realistically be no chance of the LL achieving any legal remedy. So it's really a moot point.

Edit: Too many bloody colours,my eyes hurt!

HappyMJ

joshsw25 wrote: »

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to do that


A criminal offence cannot be created by virtue of a breach of contract. - That is not my contention. A criminal offence can be a breach of contract though. If I have a contract to supply you with a cruise from Dover to Calais, and my negligence kills you, I have both broken my contract because I have not delivered you in Calais as a result of negligence. Further, I could be liable for homicide offences.

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. - You are forgetting that criminal damage is also at it's heart a common law offence (as is most of the criminal law). It matters not when AST's were created, it depends on the actus reus of the offence. If the tenant is not contractually allowed to alter property, he could be seen to be criminally altering it - the contract acts as consent should it allow alteration.

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. - - Again this is a mistake. The leasehold owner never owns the property. He owns a possessory interest in the property with the freeholder retaining the reversionary interest. Although he has a right in rem, the property is strictly speaking never owned by the leaseholder.

Really...is this really what they are teaching you. I hope by the end of the course you clarify everything you've stated here with a senior solicitor. Have a chat with the barrister next time you see them they'll have a good laugh.

My contract does not specifically allow me to alter the property I'm renting so you're telling me I've committed a criminal offence by altering the property. That's news to me.

HappyMJ

NewShadow wrote: »

As a trainee you should be aware that the tenant has to abide by the contract - AST generally state the property must be returned in the state provided.

You can't unpainted a wall, but you can return an original lock.

A tenant can paint it back to magnolia though and it'll in the same state as it was at the beginning of the tenancy or they could just leave it. After several years in a tenancy it's highly likely the wall would have needed painting anyway.

NewShadow

HappyMJ wrote: »

A tenant can paint it back to magnolia though and it'll in the same state as it was at the beginning of the tenancy or they could just leave it. After several years in a tenancy it's highly likely the wall would have needed painting anyway.

I hadn't actually noticed the full page of posts in response, so deleted my redundant (and much less comprehensive offering), then noticed your response...

Which is, of course, correct.

Cornucopia

This question comes up so often, there must be a reputable recent third-party reference that would clear up this issue to everyone's satisfaction.

IANAL, but I would have thought that the lock including the original barrel is the physical possession of the LL, and if removed and disposed of, or damaged in the act of removal, that COULD constitute criminal damage. Proving it to a criminal standard, however, could be tricky.

If the original barrel and keys are retained so as to be able to reinstate them then that may have a bearing on things.

Also, most ASTs would have a "locks & keys" clause that required new keys to be provided to the LL in the case of changes to locks. So the question is what is the LL's remedy if a tenant does not do that?

Personally, I don't see a legal resolution to this. Both sides just need to be reasonable. I don't think that a tenant changing a viewing on another property is that big a deal, especially when the requested viewing on his property falls within the originally offered time period and it isn't essential for him to be there anyway.

HappyMJ

Cornucopia wrote: »

This question comes up so often, there must be a reputable recent third-party reference that would clear up this issue to everyone's satisfaction.

IANAL, but I would have thought that the lock including the original barrel is the physical possession of the LL, and if removed and disposed of, or damaged in the act of removal, that COULD constitute criminal damage. Proving it to a criminal standard, however, could be tricky.

If the original barrel and keys are retained so as to be able to reinstate them then that may have a bearing on things.

Also, most ASTs would have a "locks & keys" clause that required new keys to be provided to the LL in the case of changes to locks. So the question is what is the LL's remedy if a tenant does not do that?

Personally, I don't see a legal resolution to this. Both sides just need to be reasonable. Personally, I don't think that a tenant cancelling a viewing on another property is that big a deal, especially when the requested viewing falls within the originally offered time period.

Criminal damage no. Act of negligence maybe. Accidental damage very much most likely. It's civil though. As long as you fix the mess you've caused then it's not criminal damage. You can destroy the original lock if you want just as long as you leave a similar replacement so no loss is caused to the LL.