Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

GwylimT

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))

You're still incorrect. Rather interesting that you didn't provide the further relevant info to contradict this. Then again my sixteen year old neice reckons shes training to be a solicitor as well.

DaftyDuck

I think josh has actually had excellent training... in how to get a client's bill as high as possible through random advice, but s0d the legal outcome.

He'll go far, this lad..... Hopefully far away from ever advising any tenant of mine; I like (most of) my tenants!

Cornucopia

Well, we may not be sure of much, but we can be reasonably sure that tenants can be guilty of arson in respect of their LL's properties....

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/250000-damage-arson-tenant-jailed/6521256.article


And yes, Criminal Damage too....

http://www.housingadviceni.org/advice-landlords/damage-caused-tenants

silvercar

If tenant refused access when they weren't present and landlord didn't enter without tenant's consent, landlord would never find out the lock barrel had been changed.

Therefore the only way landlord would know the barrel had been changed would be if he breached the tenant's rights.

Or am I missing something?

jimbog

joshsw25 wrote: »

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.......

What if the lock barrel is replaced (put in the cupboard until needed again) surely nothing has been 'removed' from the premises?

DaftyDuck

Ah, but are tenants even allowed to move the Landlord's property?

"Doors to automatic...."

Cornucopia

silvercar wrote: »

If tenant refused access when they weren't present and landlord didn't enter without tenant's consent, landlord would never find out the lock barrel had been changed.

Therefore the only way landlord would know the barrel had been changed would be if he breached the tenant's rights.

Or am I missing something?

Yes. You are missing:-

1. The tenant might be reasonable and allow the LL to enter using his keys, and then have to 'fess up to changing the lock.

2. The LL might inspect the lock without necessarily entering the premises. (His right).

3. The LL might need to attend to an emergency and might then try to use his keys to enter.

4. The tenancy agreement might well preclude the changing of locks without the LL's permission.

5. Your implied suggestion that the LL can ONLY enter with the tenant's permission is wrong.


This is quite interesting (discussion between a property lawyer and a barrister).

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/03/07/tenants-legal-help-when-the-police-unjustly-support-your-landlord/

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes. You are missing:-

1. The tenant might be reasonable and allow the LL to enter using his keys, and then have to 'fess up to changing the lock.

2. The LL might inspect the lock without necessarily entering the premises. (His right).

3. The LL might need to attend to an emergency and might then try to use his keys to enter.

4. The tenancy agreement might well preclude the changing of locks without the LL's permission.

5. Your implied suggestion that the LL can ONLY enter with the tenant's permission is wrong.


This is quite interesting (discussion between a property lawyer and a barrister).

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/03/07/tenants-legal-help-when-the-police-unjustly-support-your-landlord/

Been discussed before.

It was decided that ultimately a judge would decide. So we can just end it there.

getzls

I think Josh will soon depart this Forum.
Then return at a later date after the appropriate amount of training.

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

Been discussed before.

It was decided that ultimately a judge would decide. So we can just end it there.

That sounds like a cop-out.

It seems to me that the Barrister has it right: there are various potential offences and civil/contractual rights and responsibilities, and ultimately in a given situation, both LL and tenant may find themselves at odds with the law. A key principle seems to be that of reasonableness.

It sounds as though in some areas case law is incredibly nuanced, certainly below the level of detail we might typically use in this forum. A good example being the "locks" clause in an AST, where a clause saying "no changes" was deemed unfair, but one saying "with permission, not to be unreasonably withheld" was deemed a fair compromise.