LL stating access will be given to contractor despite permission being denied

propertyrental

flower77g said:

You could change the locks and deny access on Saturday, but you'll just open a new can of worms. Contractor might not come back for... who knows how long and LL will as suggested earlier complain about you to council. He'll have to in order to protect himself from missing the deadline they've set him.

The sad reality is that, where the tenant has only an assured shorthold tenancy, many LL's would also be sending notice to evict.     

The happy reality is that any 'notice to evict'(S21?) would be dismissed by the court.

The Deregulation Act 2015 (S33) protects AST tenants if their tenancy either started, or was renewed, after 1/10/15. Any S21 Notice (the 1st step in eviction) is invalid if

i) the tenant has reported an issue to the LL and
ii) the tenant has complained to the council and
iii) the council has inspected and
iv) the council has issued an improvement notice to the LL

macman

diystarter7 said:

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...
I don't know how much else of the property is affected, but it looks like the work is widespread.
Sounds as if the contractor is billing on an hourly rate and so stringing the job out intentionally.

Those were my thoughts exactly re rehousing whilst the work was done!

How often are hard-pressed owner occupiers "rehoused" when workes like replacing a bathroom are done. For the same reason how many council and HA T's are rehoused on a bathroom refurb?

But 'hard-pressed owner-occupiers' are not paying rent for a property which includes usable bathroom facilities, nor have they been ordered to do the work by the LA,  having refused to remedy the defects already raised by the tenant.
So your comparison is simply not relevant.
The regs which determine whether certain defects render a property unfit for human habitation are perfectly straightforward, and EH can and will enforce them.

Norman_Castle

"Hard pressed owner occupiers" will also employ the contractors directly and will be able to hold them to account or replace them if the work is not completed in a reasanable time. Is the op being treated as "just" a tenant?

[Deleted User]

Norman_Castle said:

"Hard pressed owner occupiers" will also employ the contractors directly and will be able to hold them to account or replace them if the work is not completed in a reasanable time. Is the op being treated as "just" a tenant?

The reasonable timescale has been set out by the council and is not expired. There is accountability in this case.
The landlord is trying to stick to the directions. Given all the shortcomings of this landlord, the last thing I would be doing is turning down chances to get the work done. 

Norman_Castle

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Hard pressed owner occupiers" will also employ the contractors directly and will be able to hold them to account or replace them if the work is not completed in a reasanable time. Is the op being treated as "just" a tenant?

The reasonable timescale has been set out by the council and is not expired. There is accountability in this case.
The landlord is trying to stick to the directions. Given all the shortcomings of this landlord, the last thing I would be doing is turning down chances to get the work done.

The op was forced to involve the council due to the failure to complete the work, this would be after a reasanable timescale has already passed. An owner occupier would have much more control over timescales. The contractor is accountable to the landlord, not the tenant.

I agree allowing access is needed but the contractors need to use the access to complete the work and not work at their convenience. The landlord should be pushing the contractor to complete the work.

_Penny_Dreadful

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...

Can you please quote the legislation that requires the landlord to do either of those things?

silvercar

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Hard pressed owner occupiers" will also employ the contractors directly and will be able to hold them to account or replace them if the work is not completed in a reasanable time. Is the op being treated as "just" a tenant?

The reasonable timescale has been set out by the council and is not expired. There is accountability in this case.
The landlord is trying to stick to the directions. Given all the shortcomings of this landlord, the last thing I would be doing is turning down chances to get the work done.

The op was forced to involve the council due to the failure to complete the work, this would be after a reasanable timescale has already passed. An owner occupier would have much more control over timescales. The contractor is accountable to the landlord, not the tenant.

I agree allowing access is needed but the contractors need to use the access to complete the work and not work at their convenience. The landlord should be pushing the contractor to complete the work.

All contractors work to their own convenience. The idea that landlords have a magic wand that mean they can summon a contractor to work as and when they want is pure fiction.

Norman_Castle

silvercar said:

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Hard pressed owner occupiers" will also employ the contractors directly and will be able to hold them to account or replace them if the work is not completed in a reasanable time. Is the op being treated as "just" a tenant?

The reasonable timescale has been set out by the council and is not expired. There is accountability in this case.
The landlord is trying to stick to the directions. Given all the shortcomings of this landlord, the last thing I would be doing is turning down chances to get the work done.

The op was forced to involve the council due to the failure to complete the work, this would be after a reasanable timescale has already passed. An owner occupier would have much more control over timescales. The contractor is accountable to the landlord, not the tenant.

I agree allowing access is needed but the contractors need to use the access to complete the work and not work at their convenience. The landlord should be pushing the contractor to complete the work.

All contractors work to their own convenience. The idea that landlords have a magic wand that mean they can summon a contractor to work as and when they want is pure fiction.

No one has suggested a magic wand or that landlords can dictate what a contractor does. There is a contract between the landlord and contractor, either can dispute or end the contract. Part of working to their convenience includes completing the work in a reasonable amount of time if needed.

silvercar

Norman_Castle said:

silvercar said:

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Hard pressed owner occupiers" will also employ the contractors directly and will be able to hold them to account or replace them if the work is not completed in a reasanable time. Is the op being treated as "just" a tenant?

The reasonable timescale has been set out by the council and is not expired. There is accountability in this case.
The landlord is trying to stick to the directions. Given all the shortcomings of this landlord, the last thing I would be doing is turning down chances to get the work done.

The op was forced to involve the council due to the failure to complete the work, this would be after a reasanable timescale has already passed. An owner occupier would have much more control over timescales. The contractor is accountable to the landlord, not the tenant.

I agree allowing access is needed but the contractors need to use the access to complete the work and not work at their convenience. The landlord should be pushing the contractor to complete the work.

All contractors work to their own convenience. The idea that landlords have a magic wand that mean they can summon a contractor to work as and when they want is pure fiction.

No one has suggested a magic wand or that landlords can dictate what a contractor does. There is a contract between the landlord and contractor, either can dispute or end the contract. Part of working to their convenience includes completing the work in a reasonable amount of time if needed.

The only way they can complete the work in a reasonable amount of time is if they have access.

macman

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...

Can you please quote the legislation that requires the landlord to do either of those things?

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018

There is also a breach of the terms of the AST if the home is uninhabitable due to the LL's action or inaction, so the tenant could sue.
And a breach of Section 11 of the Landlords and Tenants Act 2016, which has clearly occurred here, renders the LL liable for the costs of alternative accommodation (though technically not liable to actually provide the accommodation).
But any sane LL would arrange the accommodation themselves, rather than leaving the tenant to find it, and so effectively writing a blank cheque.