We want to be present for viewings when we move out

muhandis

Just to be clear, are you saying that if the landlord says "I need to do a viewing between 6-6.30pm day after tomorrow" and the tenant says "Sorry, can't do that. I'm busy", the landlord is acting lawfully if he just lets himself in in-spite of the tenant denying permission?

Surely that's not what you're saying below is it?

Simonr66 wrote: »

As long as the landlord give notice as laid out in the tenancy agreement then he is acting lawfully.

AdrianC

muhandis wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you saying that if the landlord says "I need to do a viewing between 6-6.30pm day after tomorrow" and the tenant says "Sorry, can't do that. I'm busy", the landlord is acting lawfully if he just lets himself in in-spite of the tenant denying permission?

Yes, that's perfectly adequate notice.

muhandis

It's adequate notice, I don't dispute that. But the tenant has denied permission to enter their home. Are you claiming that that is inconsequential?

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, that's perfectly adequate notice.

Andysandy

I own two rentals myself and would NEVER risk entering a tenanted property in a non-emergency situation without explicit written permission from the tenant. It's their home for as long as the tenancy contract lasts.

My tenancy contracts have viewings clauses in them and I could argue that by not giving "reasonable access" during the notice period, the tenant is breaking the contract, but the only remedy I have is to issue a section 8, which would be pointless as they are on their way out anyway.

AdrianC

muhandis wrote: »

It's adequate notice, I don't dispute that. But the tenant has denied permission to enter their home. Are you claiming that that is inconsequential?

I'm saying the notice is adequate.

There may well be consequences to the relationship between landlord and tenant - but since the tenant is moving anyway...

If it's a one-off, the tenant has been otherwise co-operative, and they've taken the trouble to explain why it's inconvenient, then that's a very different matter imho to if the tenant is just being consistently obstructive.

need_an_answer

I'm of the opinion that the OP is being too restrictive over viewings...in only allowing them in a 2 hour timeslot it could mean that theres little interest in viewing,opening that timeslot up and whats to say the next person who views takes the property.

just let viewings happen...and it will all be over far quicker than enforcing time slots

diggingdude

If you had changed the locks you wouldn't need to worry Not until the "I smell gas" claim is stupidly made

muhandis

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

My take is that as long as the tenancy is in progress, the landlord needs the permission of the tenant to enter the property (excluding emergencies of course).

Waltzing in to the tenant's home when they have denied permission is just not something law abiding landlords would consider doing, imho.

https://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/my-tenant-wont-allow-me-into-the-property-for-viewings/

Of course, the landlord is free to issue an S8 eviction notice contending that the tenant has broken terms of the contract re reasonable access and apply to the court for a hearing to get a possession order .

AdrianC wrote: »

I'm saying the notice is adequate.

There may well be consequences to the relationship between landlord and tenant - but since the tenant is moving anyway...

If it's a one-off, the tenant has been otherwise co-operative, and they've taken the trouble to explain why it's inconvenient, then that's a very different matter imho to if the tenant is just being consistently obstructive.

System

muhandis wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you saying that if the landlord says "I need to do a viewing between 6-6.30pm day after tomorrow" and the tenant says "Sorry, can't do that. I'm busy", the landlord is acting lawfully if he just lets himself in in-spite of the tenant denying permission?

Surely that's not what you're saying below is it?

You have take my words out of context, my comment surrounded the Quiet Enjoyment that people like to band about.


There will be a clause in the contract that the Op would have signed to allow viewings access for viewings during reasonable daylight hours in the last 2 months of their tenancy provided correct notice is given in writing. This can be by way of email or even a comp slip through the door, the majority of people are generally happy with a phone call.


If the LL/Agent gives the correct notice then they are lawfully allowed to enter, if that time is inconvenient then a different time is usually negotiated.


If the tenant makes this awkward then the LL may have a potential claim against the tenant for breach of contract.


Is it just not easier to be flexible with timings, allow viewing and get the house let thus leaving the OP to get on with their own move.

muhandis

I guess we have to agree to disagree. The simple point I'm making is that the landlord has no "right" to enter the property for a viewing if the tenant has denied permission.

I might be wrong but it seems to me that you're claiming that the landlord just needs to give notice and then can lawfully enter whether the tenant gives permission or not.

Completely agree that the landlord may have a potential claim against the tenant if they're being unreasonable about viewings but again imho that doesn't open up the remedy of waltzing in to a tenant's home against their wishes.

Simonr66 wrote: »

If the LL/Agent gives the correct notice then they are lawfully allowed to enter, if that time is inconvenient then a different time is usually negotiated.