Theoretical rental access query

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Note this is a theoretical situation, so doesn't deserve urgent attention over posters with live, ongoing issues. I just thought it was mildly interesting.

I rented a ground floor flat for some years in a Victorian end terrace, converted into two flats. The garden belonged solely to the ground floor flat and was accessed through its back door and a side gate. The top flat was owned by a different LL to mine and rented through a different agency. I was twice asked through my agent whether I could leave the side gate unlocked for tradesmen to access. As this was for important work for the top flat (new soil stack, rotting window replacements) I complied as I saw no point in being unreasonable. It did however cause me inconvenience; the plumbers kept knocking on my windows asking to use the loo, smoked in the garden without asking, and left fag ends and rubbish on the lawn; and I had to clear drifts of paint flakes and woodchips off my patio and pots after the windows were done.

I was then asked if I could leave the side gate open all day for several weeks as the LL of the top flat wanted to do a loft conversion, which would involve scaffolding and workers needing access from my garden. Now I was in the process of buying my own property and moving out, so this became the problem of the incoming tenant. I always wondered what the outcome was, as my inclination was to refuse due to the following:

-a loft conversion is not urgent or necessary building maintenance
-this amount of work and lack of privacy would be a definite breach of my right to "quiet enjoyment"
-my contract was with my LL, and the demands of the neighbouring LL were irrelevant to me.

Do you think the ground floor tenant could have refused access on this basis? If you were an owner-occupier would you have complied? Is it common for a top floor flat to have to rely totally on the goodwill of the lower occupant for maintenance access?

mrginge

I would have thought that the lease would require some form of reasonable access to be allowed.

If that was the case then it should probably be passed down the chain into a subsequent tenancy agreeement.

Guest101

As MrG says the lease (not necessarily your tenancy) would require such access.


If your Landlord did not include such a clause, you may have a claim against him or her.

bouicca21

But a loft conversion isn't reasonable maintenance. And scaffolding increases the chances of a burglary. I can't imagine that the lease covers this eventuality and I'd expect financial compensation.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

If your Landlord did not include such a clause, you may have a claim against him or her.

Not really because it means that OP was simply not bound by any right of access.

So the neighbour would have had a claim against the landlord who be in a problematic situation.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Not really because it means that OP was simply not bound by any right of access.

So the neighbour would have had a claim against the landlord who would have been in a problematic situation.

Yes, I meant if the works then went ahead

Guest101

bouicca21 wrote: »

But a loft conversion isn't reasonable maintenance. And scaffolding increases the chances of a burglary. I can't imagine that the lease covers this eventuality and I'd expect financial compensation.

To be fair, being ground floor the risk of burglary due to scaffolding would not be higher

moneyistooshorttomention

As a renter - then it's down to the landlord what access gets allowed and one can only make representations to them for this to be restricted to what is "reasonable".

As an owner-occupier in the same place - I would have allowed access for "necessary maintenance" only and made it plain that I wasn't to be inconvenienced in any way (loo visits, dirt, people smoking on my property).

As regards the loft conversion - that isn't "necessary maintenance" and it's totally unreasonable to expect to have one's gate left unlocked for that long. So - permission would have been refused. I am surprised that the landlord allowed access - as I would have refused to have my tenant disrupted like that.

Miss_Samantha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I am surprised that the landlord allowed access - as I would have refused to have my tenant disrupted like that.

The important point is that it is not for the landlord to allow but for the tenant.

bouicca21

Actually Guest I think it might. Gate open = easier access. Scaffolding means that once the builders have left (late afternoons, evenings, weekends) almost anyone could be on the scaffolding claiming to be a builder and if the occupier were out, forcing a window would be that much easier.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

It certainly sounds as though there would be a lot of tedious argy-bargy between the two LLs, two agents, freeholder and tenant. Glad I bought an uncomplicated freehold house in the end.