We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tenancy Agreement Clauses
Options
Comments
-
Repairing Obligations?
Sorry, I thought this thread was about allowing the landlord or his/her agent to show potential tenants around the property in the last 2 months of the tenancy.
The point I was trying to make (but quoted the wrong section of the Act) was that the OP was incorrect to claim that a landlord cannot under any circumstances enter a property without "explicit permission" from the tenant (presumably meaning something authorising this specific visit) or a court order.
Now I appreciate that it's a bit off topic from the original question, but it shows that the OP has some rather extreme views that are not compatible with the actual legislation.Let's settle this like gentlemen: armed with heavy sticks
On a rotating plate, with spikes like Flash Gordon
And you're Peter Duncan; I gave you fair warning0 -
After all that, it's still not reasonable to use a solicitor.
One can only lead a horse to water... Suits you if you think that it is not reasonable to use a solicitor for legal proceedings.
It may not be for a genius like yourself but normal people would disagree, not least when they show up in court and the other party is represented by an experienced solicitor because they didn't know about your brilliant advice.
And then you end up like in the case mentioned on the Landlordlaw Blog...0 -
Well, managed to have a moan and get the inventory down to ten quid, so result there. Pointed out to the landlord the visit clause in question and he didn't know it was there. Seems to be a standard letting agent thing. I said I'd be OK about visits in the last month, notice permitting, but not in the final two. How amenable I am depends on how amenable he is through the tenancy. We seem to understand each other.
I see this whole nonsense has continued in my absence. Ahhhh, some landlords and agents really do wish that a clause in an agreement trumps the need for pesky things like court orders or explicit permission. Dream on, and if you want to test that 'wishful thinking' on a tenant who is clued up then be my guest. These clauses only exist to scare unknowing tenants.
If this were the case then renting simply couldn't work. There have to be boundaries. A twelve month tenancy agreement is not eleven or ten. It's twelve. The law is also absolutely crystal clear, set in stone and immovable that you cannot remove existing rights with tenancy clauses.0 -
Privacy and property protection rights are not that complicated. When a landlord signs a tenancy agreement they accept that the space and property within is not theirs. That comes with responsibilities.No offence, but you're not quite right, but you're not quite wrong.
The area is complicated and whilst yes you know someone that called the police and the police correctly and quite rightly removed the LL.
The thing is, a landlord can argue the case for entering in the case of an emergency, something is unsafe, or you have a tenant who has left the place unattended for two or three weeks. Common sense has to be applied. But, you better have a bloody good reason and 'the tenant denied me visitation rights as in the agreement' is not one of them I'm afraid no matter how utterly desperately some questionable characters around here would like to tell people otherwise. A landlord trying to get a new tenant in as the old agreement ends is simply not a tenant's problem.
In this case, I can't remember the particulars but I think there was an inspection clause or something and the tenant denied access at a certain date and time, but the landlord went anyway at another time and got caught. Needless to say, the landlord's desperate pointing to the inspection clause was met with short shrift.0 -
She's very, very desperately digging, and digging deeper and deeper. It's simply verbal diarrhoea. She can quote whatever stack of !!!!!! she likes, but the right to protect privacy and property are sacrosanct in law and in tenancies. Trying to scare people with legal costs is yet another laughable tactic.Repairing Obligations?
Sorry, I thought this thread was about allowing the landlord or his/her agent to show potential tenants around the property in the last 2 months of the tenancy.
The reasons for this are obvious. Agents and many unscrupulous landlords don't want tenants to know what rights they actually have and want to reinforce the notion to them that what is in the agreement trumps those rights. Alas for them, they don't. As a landlord I wouldn't want to be on that kind of shaky ground.
I find it amusing on the forums section of a consumer protection site. I wonder what Martin would make of it all?0 -
You seem to know everything. Why did you ask a question?0
-
No, it doesn't and you need to re-read that carefully. If a landlord decides to enter he is going to have to argue this, and make an exceptionally good argument and have evidence to back it up that he has reason to do so - i.e. things are in a state of complete disrepair and possibly dangerous. If he can't, on his/her head be it.That clearly contradicts your statement about "explicit permission" and court orders.
It does not trump property and privacy protection rights.0 -
No, it doesn't and you need to re-read that carefully. If a landlord decides to enter he is going to have to argue this, and make an exceptionally good argument and have evidence to back it up that he has reason to do so - i.e. things are in a state of complete disrepair and possibly dangerous. If he can't, on his/her head be it.
It does not trump property and privacy protection rights.
Where does the legislation state that the landlord's right to enter the property only applies in exceptional circumstances (e.g. the property being in a dangerous state or a state of disrepair)?Let's settle this like gentlemen: armed with heavy sticks
On a rotating plate, with spikes like Flash Gordon
And you're Peter Duncan; I gave you fair warning0 -
Dream on, and if you want to test that 'wishful thinking' on a tenant who is clued up then be my guest. These clauses only exist to scare unknowing tenants.
.
Well I hope you find a clue when you need one!
I am with Samantha on this one. The key word is reasonable. A reasonable contract clause will be deemed by the Court as enforceable. There is no absolute right of privacy and no absolute right of access.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards