Tenants late with rent, again.

macaque_2

I think there is an urgent need for a good tenants and landlords register.

clutton_2

""This is the polar opposite to what you previously said."

i doubt it very much - my stance has always been that landlords cannot enter their own rental property without tenants permission for any reason other than a serious emergence. This is the right of "quiet enjoyment"

the RLA (residental landlords association defines it as follows)

quiet joyment is an implied term within any letting agreement and affords tenants the right to uninterrupted use of the property during the course of their tenancy without interference from the landlord or the landlord’s agents.


whilst i was on there, i had a look around and learned something new rfe rSEction 21s

"" A Notice to quit or more properly Notice requiring repossession issued under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 is notice to a tenant that he or she must vacate a property at the end of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. There is no prescribed form for the notice but it must specify the date after which the tenant is to give up possession. At least two month’s notice is required and possession may not be required until expiry of the first six months of the tenancy""



so - there is no prescribed form, as i previously thought, but, inclusion the relevant legislation does give it more validity - but as we can see a date is crucial.

thesaint

clutton wrote: »

""This is the polar opposite to what you previously said."

i doubt it very much - my stance has always been that landlords cannot enter their own rental property without tenants permission for any reason other than a serious emergence. This is the right of "quiet enjoyment"

It has changed from

you cannot let yourself into this property under any circumstances. The tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment. you will be breaking the law if you do.

To,

my stance has always been that landlords cannot enter their own rental property without tenants permission

Not so categoric anymore.

If you exaggerated a little, please state it now, it will be less painful than the dance you are leading at the moment. :A

guppy

thesaint wrote: »

You misunderstand me, I admit that I did not make myself clear.

If nothing has been discussed with regards to access(i.e.No consent has been withdrawn) would a landlord be acting illegally if he went in with a Gas man on a non-emergency.

A previous post, states that this would be the case.

If people exaggerate the truth, they should state this when stating points of law. :A

I would say categorically no, saint. Unless the LL has the express of the tenant, he's no more entitled to enter the property than anyone else.

Having said that, he'd only be trespassing, unlike a burglar etc., so I can't see the police being particularly interested

Oh, and you may have a hug if you want!

clutton_2

some folks just like arguing for arguings sake

thesaint

guppy wrote: »

I would say categorically no, saint. Unless the LL has the express of the tenant, he's no more entitled to enter the property than anyone else.

Having said that, he'd only be trespassing, unlike a burglar etc., so I can't see the police being particularly interested

Thank you for your straight answer to a straight question.

guppy wrote: »

Oh, and you may have a hug if you want!

Why thank-you, if your a hot female all the better, if not...

Who am I kidding, i'm not fussy. :A