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

MobileSaver

OhWow said:

subjecttocontract said:

......and it's important to recognise that tenants are not entitled, by virtue of paying rent, to expect any better treatment than an owner occupier might expect in the same situation.

We moved out when we had work done on our bathroom. It's sad to think that some home owners can't afford to move out while repairs such as these are carried out.

It's little to do with being able to afford it; for most people it's simply not necessary, more trouble than it's worth and doing so would introduce even more hassles in life.

In thirty years of home ownership I've never felt the need to move out while doing even the most extensive building work and, thinking about it now, I can't think of a single family member or friend who has either.

KxMx

I rent so slightly different, but in previous home (2 toilets) it was an absolute nightmare when the kitchen and bathroom were done at the same time.
Due to my health issues they agreed to work a 4 day week, I still struggled massively for those three weeks. 

Now I'm in a flat on my own, having been there and done that I have no wish to repeat the experience. 

I am for sure moving out for any major works lasting more than two days.
I make sure to always have enough money to pay for somewhere else to stay so no worries on that score. 

user1977

MobileSaver said:

OhWow said:

subjecttocontract said:

......and it's important to recognise that tenants are not entitled, by virtue of paying rent, to expect any better treatment than an owner occupier might expect in the same situation.

We moved out when we had work done on our bathroom. It's sad to think that some home owners can't afford to move out while repairs such as these are carried out.

It's little to do with being able to afford it; for most people it's simply not necessary, more trouble than it's worth and doing so would introduce even more hassles in life.

Indeed - at most a few days without use of a shower. Hardly worth checking into a hotel for.

macman

If it's your own property, you might be prepared to make do without bathroom facilities for a few days. But if you are a tenant, then you are paying for just those facilities, and if the LL cannot provide them within a reasonable timescale, then the tenant is entitled to expect alternative arrangements, or compo.
If you checked into a hotel for say 5 nights, and found that the bathroom was unusable, would you not expect to get an alternative room, or a reduction in the rate? I see no difference in this instance.

Norman_Castle

diystarter7 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.

Sadly a lot of people that don't have to pay don't recognise that fact.

Presumably by "people that don't have to pay" you mean tenants (or T's as you, and only you refer to them).  Sadly a lot of landlords are condescending with regards to tenants, another unrecognised "fact".

diystarter7

KxMx said:

I rent so slightly different, but in previous home (2 toilets) it was an absolute nightmare when the kitchen and bathroom were done at the same time.
Due to my health issues they agreed to work a 4 day week, I still struggled massively for those three weeks. 

Now I'm in a flat on my own, having been there and done that I have no wish to repeat the experience. 

I am for sure moving out for any major works lasting more than two days.
I make sure to always have enough money to pay for somewhere else to stay so no worries on that score. 

Hi
Thanks for sharing

It is hard like that ie do both together.

If I was your LL, I would have spoken to you and done one job at a time, that costs more but you
are not well/etc so I would have done that. More so, if you had told me you did not really want the work to go ahead because of your health and there was no urgency, I would have not done them.

No one should forget that at times builders can let everyone down.

Don't forget that moving out may mean moving a mile or three, so it is not as easy as people think, and with limited property etc  - its a difficult balance at times

LL &T's must communicate and come to a mutual agreement, which helps both sides.

I'm glad you are happy in your new place.

MobileSaver

user1977 said:

MobileSaver said:

OhWow said:

subjecttocontract said:

......and it's important to recognise that tenants are not entitled, by virtue of paying rent, to expect any better treatment than an owner occupier might expect in the same situation.

We moved out when we had work done on our bathroom. It's sad to think that some home owners can't afford to move out while repairs such as these are carried out.

It's little to do with being able to afford it; for most people it's simply not necessary, more trouble than it's worth and doing so would introduce even more hassles in life.

Indeed - at most a few days without use of a shower. Hardly worth checking into a hotel for.

^ This. A few days inconvenience at home compared to the massive upheaval of moving out to a hotel? Fair enough if you have a specific health issue but otherwise for the vast majority of people it's more trouble than it's worth.

macman said:

If you checked into a hotel for say 5 nights, and found that the bathroom was unusable, would you not expect to get an alternative room, or a reduction in the rate? I see no difference in this instance.

The two things are very different because everything in life is relative. You typically rent a property for 12 months so an unusable bathroom for 5 nights is an inconvenience but not the end of the world. However an unusable bathroom for 5 nights in a 5 night hotel-stay is, of course, unacceptable.

Boat_to_Bolivia

It would be interesting to know what happened in the end?
If they OP allowed access and the jobs were finally completed. 
Hopefully the OP will post an update soon.

In the meantime, back to the football!

subjecttocontract

I few years back I had bathrooms in x4 separate rental flats replaced. I liased closely with the tenants, offered them a new modern bathroom in exchange for their cooperation. I explained the bathroom would not be available from Monday - Friday inclusive but the builders were able to guarantee the toilet would only be out of action for one 8 hour day. The work was all completed successfully.....New suite, plumbing, tiling, flooring, decoration etc. The tenants were happy to shower at work or at the gym or round a mates house. There were no complaints, no hassle & no problems. The job came in at a reasonable (tax deductable) price for me in spite of the tight deadline. It can be done if it's organised properly.

_Penny_Dreadful

macman said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

_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.

Neither of those pieces of legislation require the landlord to provide, or pay for, alternative accommodation for the tenants never mind their dog.  A landlord is only legally required to provide alternative accommodation if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement saying they must.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/moving_out_during_repairs

However failure to provide habitable accommodation, be it the original property, or a temporary alternative, would be a breach of the tenancy agreement and would leave the LL liable to a civil action for compensation, which the tenant would be very likely to win.

A tenant only has to move out if there is no other way the repairs can be done.  There's no indication from the OP that this is the case, it certainly doesn't sound like he is having to poo into a bucket.

A tenant could take a landlord to court using Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to try and claim money for harm, discomfort, loss of enjoyment, those sorts of things but before that can happen there's a pre-action protocol to be followed.  In this instance the landlord is carrying out repairs albeit that it took the council to put a rocket up the landlord's bum.