Mandatory Face Masks

Robbo66

theartfullodger said:

As above.

Save agency time by sending your list of things needing fixing .

Those inspections under s11 of landlord and tenant act 1985 or 1987 are to check that the place is ok for you the tenant, not so landlord can check how you are using it etc.

Amazing how many stupid ignorant agents and landlords don't realise this 

The act also specifies inspection happens at reasonable times, explain to them no time is reasonable if no face mask.

Same can be said about tenants 

Silvertabby

eddddy said:

TripleH said:

It's a good point, but comes down to where you have parties with impairments, with conflicting requirements, which takes precident?

I'm no expert on this - the only part of the legislation I'm (a bit) familiar with is that businesses have to make reasonable adaptions for people with disabilities - I guess that would include viewers with disabilities, and occupiers with disabilities.

So I guess the estate agent would have to make 'reasonable adaptions' to the viewing process.

I suppose 'reasonable adaptions' might include letting people not wear masks but opening all the windows and/or only allowing one person in the property at a time and/or keeping people a set distance apart etc.

Maybe it could be argued that a 'reasonable adaption' is to only allow video viewing - but I suspect a disabled prospective viewer might argue that's not reasonable.

'Opening all the windows' is not an option with house cats.

eddddy

MaryNB said:

It's not a viewing to sell the property. It's a letting agency carrying out an inspection. 

The OP says:

TripleH said:

Again as we expect to move in the not too distant future, we would want face masks to be mandatory for any viewings on the property (again no exceptions).

Owing to having house cats who aren't allowed out I would want to be at viewings to manage them.

Maybe the OP can refuse all viewings (that's a different question).

But the OP might be on shaky ground, if they allow viewings - except for people with a disability (who can't wear face masks).


'Disability' is a protected characteristic. In legal terms it would be like allowing viewings - except for people of a particular race, or a particular sexual orientation, etc. 

theartfullodger

Robbo66 said:

theartfullodger said:

As above.

Save agency time by sending your list of things needing fixing .

Those inspections under s11 of landlord and tenant act 1985 or 1987 are to check that the place is ok for you the tenant, not so landlord can check how you are using it etc.

Amazing how many stupid ignorant agents and landlords don't realise this 

The act also specifies inspection happens at reasonable times, explain to them no time is reasonable if no face mask.

Same can be said about tenants 

True, though I'd not accuse tenants of stupidity or ignorance (well, OK, did once..)

But the issue is that, as per my earlier post. #### In England letting agents (and landlords) require no training, no qualifications, no criminal records check: You could be dealing with any old prisoner on early release from Pentonville prison from the sentence for fraud & GBH. ####

It's agent's and landlord's job to know these things, they all owe a duty of care to tenants, amazing how many don't even seem aware of this. 

For a detailed discussion of rights on this matter see..
https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/27235-l-s-right-of-access-for-inspection-or-viewing

Best regards to all

GDB2222

eddddy said:

MaryNB said:

It's not a viewing to sell the property. It's a letting agency carrying out an inspection. 

The OP says:

TripleH said:

Again as we expect to move in the not too distant future, we would want face masks to be mandatory for any viewings on the property (again no exceptions).

Owing to having house cats who aren't allowed out I would want to be at viewings to manage them.

Maybe the OP can refuse all viewings (that's a different question).

But the OP might be on shaky ground, if they allow viewings - except for people with a disability (who can't wear face masks).


'Disability' is a protected characteristic. In legal terms it would be like allowing viewings - except for people of a particular race, or a particular sexual orientation, etc. 

Whilst disability is a protected characteristic, what makes you think it’s  illegal to discriminate in these circumstances? Morally reprehensible, possibly. 

But I can think of circumstances where it’s not even morally wrong. For example, the op keeps cats, so it’s probably reasonable to exclude a blind person who wants to bring their guide dog with them.

Robbo66

theartfullodger said:

Robbo66 said:

theartfullodger said:

As above.

Save agency time by sending your list of things needing fixing .

Those inspections under s11 of landlord and tenant act 1985 or 1987 are to check that the place is ok for you the tenant, not so landlord can check how you are using it etc.

Amazing how many stupid ignorant agents and landlords don't realise this 

The act also specifies inspection happens at reasonable times, explain to them no time is reasonable if no face mask.

Same can be said about tenants 

True, though I'd not accuse tenants of stupidity or ignorance (well, OK, did once..)

But the issue is that, as per my earlier post. #### In England letting agents (and landlords) require no training, no qualifications, no criminal records check: You could be dealing with any old prisoner on early release from Pentonville prison from the sentence for fraud & GBH. ####

It's agent's and landlord's job to know these things, they all owe a duty of care to tenants, amazing how many don't even seem aware of this. 

For a detailed discussion of rights on this matter see..
https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/27235-l-s-right-of-access-for-inspection-or-viewing

Best regards to all

Don't disagree with you but the vast majority of agents sales and lettings alike are very good an knowledgeable and spend a vast amount of money on training. Agents are regulated as is the industry and the fines can be huge also with the threat of imprisonment.

"You could be dealing with any old prisoner on early release from Pentonville prison from the sentence for fraud & GBH." The same can be said about almost any industry from builders to bankers

eddddy

GDB2222 said:

Whilst disability is a protected characteristic, what makes you think it’s  illegal to discriminate in these circumstances? Morally reprehensible, possibly. 

I think that's a bit of misreprentation!!!

I specifically didn't say it was illegal - I used the phrase 'shaky ground' - because I don't know the legal position. (And you can define 'Morally reprehensible' as 'shaky ground', if you want.)

And it's completely correct to say that in legal terms discriminating against somebody because of their disability is the same as discriminating against them because of their race or sexual orientation.

(But I'm not sure what the legal position is if a 'private individual' refuses to let somebody into their home because of that person's disability, race, sexual orientation or other protected characteristic.)


But pragmatically, personally I would be cautious about refusing a viewer into my home because they claimed to have a disability - in case they genuinely did have a disability, and they went on to claim I was discriminating against them.

GDB2222 said:

But I can think of circumstances where it’s not even morally wrong. For example, the op keeps cats, so it’s probably reasonable to exclude a blind person who wants to bring their guide dog with them.

As I said in an earlier post, I believe that businesses (like estate agents) are required to make 'reasonable adaptions'.

I imagine that a reasonable adaption in this case, would be to allow the blind person to bring along a companion who could lead them by the arm around the property. (In non COVID times, I think it could even be argued that if the EA isn't allowing them to take their dog in, it would be reasonable for the EA to provide a person to lead them by the arm around the property - and describe each room in detail.)


(But again, I'm not sure what the legal position would be if a 'private individual' refused to let a blind person's companion into their home.)

user1977

eddddy said:

GDB2222 said:

Whilst disability is a protected characteristic, what makes you think it’s  illegal to discriminate in these circumstances? Morally reprehensible, possibly. 

(But I'm not sure what the legal position is if a 'private individual' refuses to let somebody into their home because of that person's disability, race, sexual orientation or other protected characteristic.)

Like I said above, there's no general obligation on householders not to discriminate. The protected characteristics only kick in for certain situations (employment, providing goods/services etc). So potentially if you were selling your home, and started discriminating among potential buyers on the basis of protected characteristics, that may be an issue (and also for the estate agents if they went along with it). But I can't see it's relevant for the OP. Ultimately if a tenant is generally being awkward about allowing inspections etc, it's for a court to decide whether they're obliged to let someone in.

newsgroupmonkey_

Robbo66 said:

Don't disagree with you but the vast majority of agents sales and lettings alike are very good an knowledgeable and spend a vast amount of money on training. Agents are regulated as is the industry and the fines can be huge also with the threat of imprisonment.

Afraid not. Even RICS themselves call it out.

It's the wild, wild west baby!

https://www.isurv.com/info/1330/lettings_agents_regulation_and_consumer_protection

They are trying to change it.

Many of them belong to Propertymark (Formerly ARLA), but that's not like being regulated by the FCA or another Government body.