Tenancy Agreement Clauses

Miss_Samantha

"The last 2 months of the tenancy" is as clear as can be, unless the reader does not understand what 'tenancy' means.

This isn't worded badly.

HappyMJ

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Clearly, that's not the case.

Such clause is actually standard, or should be, and is important: Without such an explicit clause the landlord has indeed no right to access the property to show it to potential new tenants.

The fact that many landlords do not either enforce such clause, or seek compensation for breaches does not mean that a tenant who thought it was fine to ignore the clause "because MSE said so" could not end up being liable for thousands of pounds in compensation and legal costs.



Obviously not in the sense that they both state what you may not do. The difference is the consequences of a breach.

Thousands of pounds in compensation because a LL can't get inside a property in the last few weeks of a tenancy to show a potential tenant around. I don't think so.

We do have laws but we also have reality and when a law or a clause in a contract is never or cannot properly be enforced there's no need to follow it.

Miss_Samantha

HappyMJ wrote: »

Thousands of pounds in compensation because a LL can't get inside a property in the last few weeks of a tenancy to show a potential tenant around. I don't think so.

Really?

As an example, how much do you think a tenant could have to pay if he defends a s.21 or s.8 and lose?

HappyMJ

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Really?

How much do you think a tenant could have to pay if he defends a s.21 or s.8 and lose?

The tenant has given notice. That's the only way to define "the last 2 months" of the tenancy. A s.21 or a s.8 does not end the tenancy. It's just a notice requiring possession. The tenant can move out on the expiry date of the notice and not pay a penny as court action cannot be commenced until the notice has expired.

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

That's incorrect.
As long as a clause for access is reasonable then it is valid and you are not legally entitled to refuse access, and the landlord does nothing 'wrong' by accessing the property pursuant to the clause.

I'm sorry to burst a lot of very wishful landlords' bubbles around here, but unless a tenant gives explicit permission or you have a court order allowing you to enter then the legal system is very clear what side it is on.

If you'd like to test this, by all means enter a property without explicit permission and then see what happens when a clued up tenant gets evidence and goes to the police. You *will* end up with a criminal record regardless of what it says on the tenancy agreement.

Tenancy agreements cannot be used to remove rights.

segedunum

FBaby wrote: »

As for the two months visits rather than one, does it really make that much of a difference?

It's 1/6 of the tenancy, which is taking liberties somewhat. I'll be happy to be accommodating if things go well, even though I don't have to.

Do go ahead and raise these if you wish, but if you have already signed it, you are likely to label yourself as a trouble maker and get the landlord on their guards from the start, which could result in them being less than flexible when you will want them to be.

I'm afraid raising these issues is not causing trouble. If a landlord does see this as causing trouble then it's time to run I think.

Miss_Samantha

segedunum wrote: »

I'm sorry to burst a lot of very wishful landlords' bubbles around here, but unless a tenant gives explicit permission or you have a court order allowing you to enter then the legal system is very clear what side it is on.

I don't think you should use this condescending tone on a topic that you very clearly do not know enough to comment on.

It is also puzzling that you seem to think that an explicit clause stating that you give your landlord a right of access is not "explicit permission'.
Likewise regarding your belief that the police would intervene on a civil matter.

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

"The last 2 months of the tenancy" is as clear as can be, unless the reader does not understand what 'tenancy' means.

No, I'm afraid you don't understand what 'tenancy' means in existing law.

Unfortunately, people put these clauses in expecting them to override the law. They don't I'm afraid. If you believe this and you act on it you're getting a criminal record.

It's the only thing that's put me on my guard about this. The landlord himself seems reasonable, but the contract is drawn up by the letting agency. Many believe this gives them a legal right to enter. It doesn't, and I need to point this out.

Miss_Samantha

segedunum wrote: »

No, I'm afraid you don't understand what 'tenancy' means in existing law.

Oh boy...

I think the landlord should be the one running at this point.

segedunum

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Yes, there is a covenant of quiet enjoyment, and has exclusive possession. Hence the need of an explicit right of access and my use of the term 'reasonable' in my first post as the right of access must not be excessive because of this.

No, this is not how the law works. The law is very clear on what a tenancy agreement is.

When you sign over a property in a tenancy agreement you sign over the space and privacy within that property for the duration of the tenancy and you *do not* get to enter under any circumstances without being invited or without a court order. I've seen people wave away 'quiet enjoyment' thinking this doesn't matter but the law is very clear on harassment and privacy. I've had to point this out to some landlord friends that they have to detach themselves from the property apart from keeping an eye out every now and again.

If this was the case any clauses could be put into a contract allowing all sorts of access. There's even a clause in my agreement saying that if a court finds any clauses in there void the rest of it still applies! You don't have to be a lawyer to see that it's a joke legally.