Q - notice by tenants to move

G_M

isleofdogs wrote: »

Sorry I have found that clause which said: during the last 2 months of tenancy, the tenants agree to visits to the property by the LL or the LL's Agent together with any other persons in connection with the re-letting, sale or refurbishment of the property upon a minimum of 24 hours prior verbal or written notification.

So, does this mean the LL can harass me for breaching this clause - no access while I was away - claiming he has lost out on potential tenants? Can he sue me for lost rent?

He cannot 'harass' you (that's a criminal offence). But he can give you 24 hours notice of viewings and expect access.

You agreed to this contractually.

However you still have certain Common Law rights of 'quiet enjoyment' which can balance against the contractual agreement you made.

So his requests for access must be 'reasonable'. If he wanted access at 2.00 in the morning, that would not be reasonable. If he wanted access 4 times a day, for 3 days running, that would not be reasonable.

So I return to the advice in my earlier post above

The ideal solution is to discuss this with your LL and reach a compromise eg
* you permit access when you are present but not when you are absent (or vice verse if you prefer!)
* you permit access on 1 day per week (or 2, 3 whatever)
* you restrict acess to certain hours eg 6 pm-7pm or after 12 on weekends or whatever

the above is all up for discussion/negotiation.

isleofdogs

Thank you, G_M, for your reply.

I have not deliberately prevented LL from sending his agents to view the house with potential tenants. I have been away from the UK on an emergency matter, and will not be back in the U.K. till this weekend. I have allowed access for viewings before I left overseas (and there had been 2 separate ones from 2 separate agents). I have emailed LL that I have been away, but I was worried he would act against me for no access for 2 weeks.

You are right that I did not read the agreement carefully. Now I know which clauses to read. In practice, do you know if these clauses can be negotiated? - say instead of 2 months notice and viewing to 1 month notice and viewing, because I think 2 months are too long and onerous. Does any tenant negotiate this at all?

ThePants999

The theory is great and all, but here's the reality: you'll struggle to find many, if any, examples of tenants suffering any penalty from not providing the access their landlord wanted for viewings. Yes, there's a contract that says you will, but the combination of the "quiet enjoyment right" plus the difficulty to landlords of proving consequential losses means that although landlords huff and puff about it, it never really amounts to anything except perhaps a worse reference.

Slithery

isleofdogs wrote: »

Does any tenant negotiate this at all?

Yes. But you negotiate before signing the contract.

Guest101

Ultimately if you change the locks and ignore their requests for viewings, they would need to go to court - which would probably take longer than the end of your tenancy

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

Ultimately if you change the locks and ignore their requests for viewings, they would need to go to court - which would probably take longer than the end of your tenancy

Why does that make any difference? The LL can still sue for a loss whether the tenant is in situ or not.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Why does that make any difference? The LL can still sue for a loss whether the tenant is in situ or not.

What loss? (I agree there may be a 'loss' but I'm asking specifically, which are you referring to?)

G_M

Guest101 wrote: »

What loss? (I agree there may be a 'loss' but I'm asking specifically, which are you referring to?)

You're right to question this, as examples of LLs successfully claiming for a loss in circumstances like this are rare.

But if the LL could show
* tenant refused to allow the LL to market the property during the tenancy
* property was left void after the tenancy ended for X days/weeks, with loss of rent
* LL marketed the property once tenancy ended, and had numerous appropriate applicants - demonstrating that marketing during the tenancy could have reduced or negated the void period

then a successful claim could be made.

DumbMuscle

Here's the thing - the viewings are likely to take just as long whether they start now, or in 1 month - if the landlord starts viewings now and finds a tenant in 2 weeks, he's not going to keep doing viewings just for the hell of it.

It's likely to be easier to negotiate viewings at a time of day which suits you than it is to negotiate a shorter period for the landlord to do viewings - since otherwise you're asking him to take on a higher risk of not getting a tenant, for no benefit to him!

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

You're right to question this, as examples of LLs successfully claiming for a loss in circumstances like this are rare.

But if the LL could show
* tenant refused to allow the LL to market the property during the tenancy
* property was left void after the tenancy ended for X days/weeks, with loss of rent
* LL marketed the property once tenancy ended, and had numerous appropriate applicants - demonstrating that marketing during the tenancy could have reduced or negated the void period

then a successful claim could be made.

Absolutely I agree a claim could be made. Obviously each would be tested on their own merits.


I think most often a LL wouldn't bother pursuing it as the success rate is very hit and miss; as such it's a risk to spend time bringing a claim which is not straight forward.