Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't really want opinions on something that really should be a matter of facts.


There's your problem.


Ooops... and another one.

It's all opinions until a judge decides.

But go on, explain problem 1 and 2...

prosaver

humam rights law section 7 r8 carnt b ......

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

It's all opinions until a judge decides.

I'd sooner have a barrister's opinion than anyone else's.

But go on, explain problem 1 and 2...

Problem 1: It is the landlord's property (and the tenant's home).

Problem 2: The LL or their agent is not just some random person. They have rights and obligations conferred in various ways.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'd sooner have a barrister's opinion than anyone else's.



Problem 1: It is the landlord's property (and the tenant's home).

Problem 2: The LL or their agent is not just some random person. They have rights and obligations conferred in various ways.

Judge > barrister

It's the LLs asset, tenants property

They are random to the tenant...

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

Judge > barrister

Well, yes. Do you have a Judge's opinion handy?

No? Can you see how approaching a Judge every time someone needs(*) to get a Gas Certificate might be a little inconvenient?

(*) Needs - as in "to satisfy a legal requirement".

I note that Tessa's ultimate solution to a blocked or ignored request to inspect the Gas installation is to evict the tenant. Nice.

They are random to the tenant...

Not in any meaningful sense.

And even then, I'm dealing with a random tax inspector at the moment. Apparently his randomness does not preclude him having some kind of legal authority. Who'd have thought?

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

Well, yes. Do you have a Judge's opinion handy?

No? Can you see how approaching a Judge every time someone needs(*) to get a Gas Certificate might be a little inconvenient?

(*) Needs - as in "to satisfy a legal requirement".

I note that Tessa's ultimate solution to a blocked or ignored request to inspect the Gas installation is to evict the tenant. Nice.
Not in any meaningful sense.

And even then, I'm dealing with a random tax inspector at the moment. Apparently his randomness does not preclude him having some kind of legal authority. Who'd have thought?

A judges opinion isn't required every time a LL needs to get a GSC. However it is required when there is a dispute.

Yes ultimately it is to evict. Which is fine in my book.

I'm sorry your having trouble with HMRC, however he isn't asking to enter your home when you aren't there...

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

A judges opinion isn't required every time a LL needs to get a GSC. However it is required when there is a dispute.

Which could be every time. What with these random tenants.... well they are random to me.

Yes ultimately it is to evict. Which is fine in my book.

Someone would rather get kicked out than agree to a reasonable request to comply with a legal requirement. That's bonkers.

I'm sorry your having trouble with HMRC, however he isn't asking to enter your home when you aren't there...

Made up scenario - and I have a feeling the VAT people have rights of entry.


Anyway, here's the Government's guidance. Do we believe them or not?

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/your-rights-and-responsibilities

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

Which could be every time. What with these random tenants.... well they are random to me.

Someone would rather get kicked out than agree to a reasonable request to comply with a legal requirement. That's bonkers.


Made up scenario - and I have a feeling the VAT people have rights of entry.


Anyway, here's the Government's guidance. Do we believe them or not?

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/your-rights-and-responsibilities

1: they're not random. A LL can vet his tenants, the same is not applied in reverse.

2: 'legal' is the whole debate we're having. Have you not worked that out? And actually most of the time it's when the LL isn't reasonable that this is required

3: not without a COURT order ( a JUDGE ) they don't. But by all means show your ignorance.

4: of course not, .gov sites are notoriously misinformed...

NewShadow

I don't really want opinions on something that really should be a matter of facts.

Just to reiterate - that's not how our (UK) legal system works.

Law isn't a matter of fact, it's a matter of interpretation and precedent.

We may have duties or rights based on policy, legislation, other stuff, but the are no 'laws' which cannot have a mitigating defence.

Precedent may be persuasive or outdated, terms may be deemed fair or unfair, legislation may be judged relevant or irrelevant.

If the individuals cannot come to an acceptable agreement, the case must be presented to an individual who has the authority to 'judge' the case. That individual can then decide if any law was broken or right infringed, or can tell the parties to just go away .

Until that individual has made a decision, there is no 'fact' of the matter.

What is finally determined to be right or wrong could all come down to how obnoxious the judge finds one of the parties involved...

Thank you btw.

I'm finding this whole discussion very entertaining.

Miss_Samantha

NewShadow wrote: »

Just to reiterate - that's not how our (UK) legal system works.

Law isn't a matter of fact, it's a matter of interpretation and precedent.

Hi NewShadow,

Indeed.

Luckily, the issue of access has existed for decades, if not centuries, and the legal position surrounding it is rather clear.

Contributors on general forums may not be aware of it, though, despite the bravado.
Having had a quick look around it seems that even specialised blogs are not clear on it, which is more surprising.