Section 21 question

G_M

RIPironman wrote: »

I have a periodic tenancy. My original fixed term contract does say I'm supposed to allow access for viewings in the last 4 weeks but Shelter say that can't be enforced as the contract also states I am entitled to quiet enjoyment and that I have sole possession. Landlords aren't allowed in without permission unless its an emergency, regardless of what the lease says. Its a contractual requirement, not a statutory one.

This is simply not true.

The landlord's right of access is contractual. You agreed to it when you signed the contract.

Your right to 'Quiet Enjoyment' is a common law right (based on historic legal precedences), or possibly also contractual if it is written into the contract.

Neither of these is a statutory right. (if you, or Shelter, disagree, please let me know which Act of Parliament provides such a right!)

Since these two rights may be in conflict, the courts would look at the circumstances and decide what was a reasonable compromise.

At one extreme, if the LL interrupted your QE with multiple daily viewings, or night-time viewings, clearly the court would rule that was an unreasonable interference to your right to quiet Enjoyment of your tenancy.

At the other extreme, if you denied all access, the court would rule that to be in breach of your contract and permit the LL access, or award him compensation for being unable to line up a new tenant.

In the middle ground is a less clear area which depends on the precise circumstances, and the opinion of the judge before whom the case came.

Miss_Samantha

RIPironman wrote: »

I have a periodic tenancy. My original fixed term contract does say I'm supposed to allow access for viewings in the last 4 weeks but Shelter say that can't be enforced as the contract also states I am entitled to quiet enjoyment and that I have sole possession. Landlords aren't allowed in without permission unless its an emergency, regardless of what the lease says. Its a contractual requirement, not a statutory one.

This is simply not correct but unfortunately it is a claim that is too often made either by ignorance or because of a political agenda.

There are no contradicting rights. Quiet enjoyment is contractual and modulated according to the terms of the lease.
A right of access must simply not be excessive.

One should also remember that if the tenant breaches such clause, seeking to enforce it is not the only remedy. The landlord may also seek compensation for any loss.

RIPironman

Yes but, as you say, the COURT would have to decide that. I'm not sure he can apply to get the courts involved until after my tenancy has ended, then he would apply for the possession order.

As far as I am aware, Shelter use all the latest legislation and as the guy said "we get asked this all the time" so not sure they would give me false information.

I might be in breach of contract by refusing viewings but she could only wait to have be evicted if that was the case.

RIPironman

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

This is simply not correct but unfortunately it is a claim that is too often made either by ignorance or because of a political agenda.

There are no contradicting rights. Quiet enjoyment is contractual and modulated according to the terms of the lease.
A right of access must simply not be excessive.

One should also remember that if the tenant breaches such clause, seeking to enforce it is not the only remedy. The landlord may also seek compensation for any loss.

So Shelter don't know what they're talking about then?

RIPironman

Also Shelter mentioned that at the end of the Section 21 notice (in my case 27th July), this does not technically mean the end of the tenancy. Landlord then needs to get a possession order.

So how then, can the landlord know when to start the last 4 weeks of the tenancy (where I am contractually obligated to allow viewings)?

Cupcake85

If you have been given notice why can't you just leave... why make things difficult for all involved!

RIPironman

Cupcake85 wrote: »

If you have been given notice why can't you just leave... why make things difficult for all involved!

I assume you're a landlord. I'll explain this again then. The landlord promised us he wouldn't serve notice until a sale was agreed. He knows we have been actively looking to buy another property but haven't managed to find one yet. We have been model tenants for over a year now and have given her access and bent over backwards on several occasions.

Without even a courtesy call or email, she shoves a notice letter through our door giving us 8 weeks to leave. I have 2 young children.

And yes, its her house and she can do what she likes but - I'm afraid if she makes my life difficult when I've done nothing wrong, I will do the same back.

In 8 weeks time she will have a lovely empty house to show as many people around as she wants. So why not just leave us alone until then?

RIPironman

Cupcake85 wrote: »

If you have been given notice why can't you just leave... why make things difficult for all involved!

I think your comment is disgusting by the way. You clearly have no idea of how stressful it is being told you have to leave your home with your children. I didn't choose to have to rent someone else's house!!!

People like you just see me as being awkward for no reason. You don't know all the facts.

luckbox

How can a sale be agreed if you intend to refuse viewings? It seems you pushed the landlord into issuing the section 21?

Best to use the 2 months to find somewhere than fight it and be court evicted with nowhere to go.

RIPironman

luckbox wrote: »

How can a sale be agreed if you intend to refuse viewings? It seems you pushed the landlord into issuing the section 21?

Best to use the 2 months to find somewhere than fight it and be court evicted with nowhere to go.

No, I refused to do viewings when she decided to give me notice early.