Landlord causing problems. Please help.

MissMoneypenny

thesaint wrote: »

When does it become harassment and therefore a crime?

I thought you were a LL? If you don't know what you are and aren't allowed to do as a LL, then why aren't you paying a solicitor to advise you?

MissMoneypenny

thesaint wrote: »

Which is exactly what franklee is saying.

franklee knows that is an unfair clause, but how many others have things like this in their contract and don't know it is unfair?

If it were me, I would report that LL to The Office of Fair Trading, to make sure that that LL doesn't use that clause again. If the property came though a letting agent and that agent claims they conform to the OFT, then I would report them to to Trading Standards.

Personally, I would like to see instant fines imposed on LLs who insert unfair clauses in the contracts. It then might make going to a solicitor to get proper legal advice, a cheaper option for them then. They are meant to be running a business but most don't seem to have a clue what is law and what isn't.

BobProperty

franklee wrote: »

.....Actually no, it's not whoever loses picks up the bill for court costs! It's whoever the judge rules picks up the costs. In a clear cut case, like a valid S21, then it would most likely be the loser, but otherwise the judge can and will choose.....

As the case is likely to be a "Small Claim" then costs aren't usually awarded anyway, though I think a judge may have discretion to get someone to pay costs if they were "vexatious" and wasting the courts time.

Guy_Montag

OP, can you give us an update about what happened, or is happening. Someone mentioned that you & your housemates should work as a group in this. I think that's the best advice offered & sorry it's been dragged so far off topic.

However, since we're here...
As most know, I am all for tenants' rights & would support the right to change the locks, not just to keep the LL at bay, but who knows which past tenants still have a key. Common sense suggests you need to ensure that the place is secure.

In a perfect world the LL's should replace the tumblers between each tenant, keep a key & know the rules so they don't invade the tenants' privacy.

However, one problem with changing the locks against the tenancy agreement is that should the LL need to get into the property for a genuine emergency & not be able to, the tenant could potentially find themselves liable for damage caused.

crispsandwich

Thanks very much for all the replies. I've phoned Shelter. What a great service. Very helpful. My tenancy agreement basically says that the landlord can authorise anyone to enter the property for 'any proper purpose' with reasonable notice and in daylight hours. I explained the situation and this part of the agreement and the lady I spoke to said that it sounds like a common cause in every shorthold tenancy agreement, and that I can argue what I feel is a proper purpose and what isn't. She said she'd never heard of a situation like mine and that it is certainly unreasonable and I have a right to refuse. She also said that although she isn't an expert on insurance, any contents insurance we have may be void if these people were to enter the house with a key and steal/damage anything. She also said, however, that she can see that the LL is just trying to do the easiest thing for those tenants because they will basically be without a bathroom for a week or more. I agree but that is not our problem.

I'm going to ring my LL after I've spoken to my housemates. There are only two of us in the house (out of the four of us) bothered enough to say anything so I don't know how much they object to this intrusion. If I knew these people who will/will not be using our facilities I wouldn't have a problem as long as we were compensated and we had a written agreement from the LL that we wouldn't be liable for any damage. I'm sure they're nice, reasonable people but I 'm not sure I want to take a chance with complete strangers, despite the fact that we know where they live.

I won't be changing the locks. I think that would be going a bit far. If after I've spoken to the LL the situation still has not been resolved (i.e. they have not backed down), I will be putting my concerns in writing. I may just put it in writing anyway. Then the next port of call will be a tenancy relations officer from the local council.

Again, thanks a lot for the replies. Very helpful . What a great forum.

MissMoneypenny

Sorry that I went off topic OP.

As you have contents insurance, do any of you have legal cover on any of those policies? I believe that Endsleigh may have one that covers LL problems?

If you have legal cover on any of your contents insurance policy, you can get legal help either through their legal helpline or they will give you a solicitor. All it should cost for a solicitor is the price of your insurance excess but the legal helpline should be free.

I forgot to say, sometimes a parents contents policy will cover the student for legal help too. Churchill use to be one of those companies.

thesaint

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I thought you were a LL? If you don't know what you are and aren't allowed to do as a LL, then why aren't you paying a solicitor to advise you?

I am a landlord, not a Police Officer.

That's why I asked you.

I do not believe that the handyman in the OP's case has committed a crime, you say he has. I am not paying a solicitor to advise me to answer questions on MSE.

Answering a question without answering the one posed to you is what I expected from you.

Loretta

thesaint wrote: »

I can tell if the 'Yale' lock on my property has been changed, i'm sure if the lock on your house had been changed as well if you were stood at the front door.

Unless someone changed the lock for one of the same make, colour age etc, it's quite easy. You don't realise the minute details of something like this until you think about it.



The 24 hours thing is a guideline which the tenant can refuse anyway.
I am not debating the in's and out's of the landlord entering the property, just the changing the locks.

What do you mean "He shouldn't have been there?

As a landlord, there could be a million reasons why he could be at his front door.

You can change the barrel which is inside and it would not show by looking at it only by trying a key which does not fit

If a landlord has a million reasons to enter he could give notice a million times.

So many problems with rented properties are caused by the landlords continuing to think that it is still HIS front door. During the time of the tenancy the tenant is paying the landlord rent to make it the tenant's front door

A proper professional landlord who has taken the trouble to find out how to do it properly would make a time to speak to his tenants and ask them if it was Ok for him to give a key to people they do not know so that these people can come and go into the house and use a bathroom whenever they felt like it. But maybe a proper professional landlord would have more sense than to suggest such a silly thing!!

I just hate these silly amateur landlords!!

guppy

thesaint wrote: »

I do not believe that the handyman in the OP's case has committed a crime, you say he has. I am not paying a solicitor to advise me to answer questions on MSE.

Provided the handyman has entered innocently, with no intent to harass the tenant on behalf of the landlord, then there is no crime, in my opinion.

But he may have broken the law by trespassing on the tenant's property. This is regardless of whether he thought he had permission to enter or not, the landlord is not in a position to give permission. This can only be granted by the tenant.

This is all just technical, unless he's caused any lasting damage etc., realistically there's nothing much the tenant can do about it except learn his rights and prevent it happening again.

franklee

guppy wrote: »

Provided the handyman has entered innocently, with no intent to harass the tenant on behalf of the landlord, then there is no crime, in my opinion.

But he may have broken the law by trespassing on the tenant's property. This is regardless of whether he thought he had permission to enter or not, the landlord is not in a position to give permission. This can only be granted by the tenant.

This is all just technical, unless he's caused any lasting damage etc., realistically there's nothing much the tenant can do about it except learn his rights and prevent it happening again.

Right.

Harassment is not a one off incident, it's a course of conduct. So in the handyman case the tenant should make a written complaint to the landlord or agent if they deal through an agent. The tenant should state what happened and reiterate that they require notice and wish to be present (if they do). That way if it happens again the tenant can refer back to what happened before and make the complaint and his case stronger.

I don't think these things are all guns blazing but a quiet collection of written evidence to be used later on and to show the tenant means business in nipping the behaviour in the bud. Most agents know the law yet sometimes they are prepared to ignore it, I find a proper written complaint works to check this as it demonstrates I'm going to be through in collecting evidence. When dealing with an unreasonable landlord ignorant of even the basic law then I do not know what would work.