Video made of rental property showing everything I own!!

Jonboy_1984

pennyunwise said:

Surely the agent has an obligation to the tenant to remove the video, after all they have removed all the advertising photos etc from Rightmove etc but not the video which remains on YouTube.

Rightmove often keep it all under the Sold House Priced part of their site. As previously linked you have to ask them explicitly to remove it.

Cynically, I would report the video to YouTube as a copyright violation or similar and bet the agency won’t bother to fight it…

ThisIsWeird

pennyunwise said:

However the agent did not post the video online until 2 weeks after the property was relet and now won’t remove it.

That's pretty galling, indeed. Tho' I'm still not sure if you can demonstrate any tangible harm.

Please try what I suggested before (at least I think I did); go on the ICO website and have a 'chat'.

Get your facts ready, and be as brief and succinct as possible. Mention everything of significance that you had on visual display (regardless of whether any details can be made out). And then ask what law or reg you can cite in order to persuade them to remove it - even if it has few teeth in reality.

I suspect that at the first sight of a legally-worded complaint, citing actual laws, they will have the frighteners. Would be interesting to try - and very satisfying if it works.

Failing that, I can only suggest to literally and figuratively move on.

lookstraightahead

user1977 said:

lookstraightahead said:

MeteredOut said:

lookstraightahead said:

I seriously don't think this is debatable. I would be furious. I've not asked or given permission for my personal items to be viewed by everyone 

No-one can deny you your feelings, but the length of this thread shows that it is eminently debatable, and consensus seems to be nothing wrong been done (legally).

I agree this thread shows that no one so far actually has the answer, and I cannot fathom how it could be legal. I'm not saying it isn't, it would just really surprise me if it is. 

Things are lawful unless something makes them unlawful. The fact that nobody (and the contributors here include those who are legally qualified...) has come up with any legal argument which makes it (generally) unlawful for an agent to take photos inside your residence says it all.

It really doesn't say it all, I don't think you know either tbh.

BobT36

Mstty said:

lookstraightahead said:

I seriously don't think this is debatable. I would be furious. I've not asked or given permission for my personal items to be viewed by everyone 

This just goes to highlight the relationship between LL and Tenant is purely business. You don't have a relationship at all especially when it comes to end of tenancy it's all about the LL fulfilling their business goals and getting the property let asap.

You may not like it but it's a business.

The landlord's void period is NONE of the tenant's concern, while the tenancy is still active. 
Anything written / forced into a contract to help the landlord with that is one-sided (as no benefit to tenant), and therefore "unfair". It also conflicts with the tenant's statuary right of right to quiet enjoyment, and you can't sign away your statutory rights (if you don't want to) as that is also "unfair". To my understanding, the statutory rights / law trumps the contract. Pretty sure it would be unenforceable (should the tenant not allow it), and if the tenant is leaving anyway then even if it could be, good luck getting it enforced in time if push came to shove.

Of course, if it's part of a negotiated early surrender then it benefits both, so that's a different scenario and I can't imagine a tenant wouldn't allow the EAs to enter and take (reasonable) pics etc, if it allowed them to leave early mid-contract.
Otherwise, the landlord's "business costs" (non-tenant caused repairs, void periods, taxes etc.) are nothing to do with the tenant, that's just a cost of doing business, and the landlord should factor that into their costs accordingly like any other business would. They should be thankful enough they're in the privileged position to own additional property. 

BobT36

pennyunwise said:

Skiddaw1 said:

Seems to me it goes beyond what's lawful and what isn't. IMO it would have been common curtesy to at least run it by the tenant first before making the video. I'm sure some people wouldn't have a problem with it at all and others would be fine with it if given the opportunity to move anything they didn't want filmed but it wouldn't have hurt to ask surely?

The fact is the agent didn’t need a video. They had photos and the opportunity to do do viewings. The agent said the property would let within a day of being advertised - which it did. 

However the agent did not post the video online until 2 weeks after the property was relet and now won’t remove it. What is the purpose of it staying online for all to see, and anyone enquiring is simply told the property has been let and is no longer available.

Surely the agent has an obligation to the tenant to remove the video, after all they have removed all the advertising photos etc from Rightmove etc but not the video which remains on YouTube.

Tbh although I'm against pictures / videos (while the tenant is still present) being enforced, I don't see what the problem is, if the tenant has already left. As long as there's nothing personally identifying visible then what does it matter? No-ones going to know "who's" stuff that was, even if there is a blow-up doll stood in one of the rooms (lol).
If there is something personally identifying, I'd expect that to be edited from the vid. If not, then no problem. 

While the tenant is still present though, that's a different matter. I'm really suprised burglars don't use any (obviously current) pictures and vids to have a nice little "case" of a property and decide what to steal, especially as if it's on the market, everything is soon likely to be nice and packed ready for a quick getaway. 
I personally have a lot of expensive stuff and computer equipment that I wouldn't want on show to anyone else who doesn't need to see it, and certainly wouldn't want pics or vids to be taken and put online for all and sundry, while it's still present in the property. Therefore I simply would not allow such to be taken while in the property. After left though? Who cares, it's then just some random stuff and no longer present for anyone to do anything nefarious with. 

Murphybear

MultiFuelBurner said:

BobT36 said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

pennyunwise said:

Hi, I am moving out of a rented property and the managing agent has asked if they can do viewings on a certain day to re-let the property - no problem.

I have now become aware that they have made a video of the property showing all my possessions without asking my permission. Where do I stand? - I'm not happy about having everything I own shown online.

We have a section in ours regarding access and photographs to market the property for rent or for sale in the last 2 months of the tenancy. 

Unenforceable if challenged, surely? Doesn't benefit the tenant (one-sided) and conflicts with the right to quiet enjoyment of the property. There's no difference to the last 2 weeks to any other time in the tenancy, such access PURELY for that is irrelevant to the tenant and THEIR tenancy. 

Some people have a lot of specialist expensive equipment, jewellery or whatever and wouldn't want that shown off to all and sundry. 

And back in the real world where you point out custom clauses for new tenants and no one goes off to see if every little thing is enforceable or against the Magna Carta before a holding deposit is taken.
6
Most of our tenants also like the custom clauses we add when they accidentally get a pet and we then allow it.

When you have good LL and tenants its a good relationship. Perhaps the OP hasn't found their good LL fit yet.

The way you put it we would burst in at any time so they couldn't put anything away, just laughable really as that's not the real world just fantasyland. We haven't had to do this for any property over the past 10 years as they are snapped up by word of mouth anyway or the existing tenant puts forward someone they know forward.

But thanks for the laugh.

This made me laugh.  We found some tenants for a corporate landlord (big supermarket who owned lots of flats/houses) and they asked if they could get a dog.  The LL agreed and when we did a routine inspection six months later found their “dog” was 3 Rottweilers

user1977

BobT36 said:

pennyunwise said:

Skiddaw1 said:

Seems to me it goes beyond what's lawful and what isn't. IMO it would have been common curtesy to at least run it by the tenant first before making the video. I'm sure some people wouldn't have a problem with it at all and others would be fine with it if given the opportunity to move anything they didn't want filmed but it wouldn't have hurt to ask surely?

The fact is the agent didn’t need a video. They had photos and the opportunity to do do viewings. The agent said the property would let within a day of being advertised - which it did. 

However the agent did not post the video online until 2 weeks after the property was relet and now won’t remove it. What is the purpose of it staying online for all to see, and anyone enquiring is simply told the property has been let and is no longer available.

Surely the agent has an obligation to the tenant to remove the video, after all they have removed all the advertising photos etc from Rightmove etc but not the video which remains on YouTube.

I'm really suprised burglars don't use any (obviously current) pictures and vids to have a nice little "case" of a property and decide what to steal, especially as if it's on the market, everything is soon likely to be nice and packed ready for a quick getaway. 

I'm not. The vast majority of burglaries (to the extent they're even still a thing these days) are opportunist crimes - they'll be looking for a property which is easy to get in and out of right now, not spending weeks casing properties on Rightmove and trying to guess the specifications of people's computers. And almost all properties will contain something worth stealing, enough to pay for a junkie's next fix anyway.

There will of course be different security considerations if you have a seriously large amount of valuables.

SadieO

user1977 said:

BobT36 said:

pennyunwise said:

Skiddaw1 said:

Seems to me it goes beyond what's lawful and what isn't. IMO it would have been common curtesy to at least run it by the tenant first before making the video. I'm sure some people wouldn't have a problem with it at all and others would be fine with it if given the opportunity to move anything they didn't want filmed but it wouldn't have hurt to ask surely?

The fact is the agent didn’t need a video. They had photos and the opportunity to do do viewings. The agent said the property would let within a day of being advertised - which it did. 

However the agent did not post the video online until 2 weeks after the property was relet and now won’t remove it. What is the purpose of it staying online for all to see, and anyone enquiring is simply told the property has been let and is no longer available.

Surely the agent has an obligation to the tenant to remove the video, after all they have removed all the advertising photos etc from Rightmove etc but not the video which remains on YouTube.

I'm really suprised burglars don't use any (obviously current) pictures and vids to have a nice little "case" of a property and decide what to steal, especially as if it's on the market, everything is soon likely to be nice and packed ready for a quick getaway. 

I'm not. The vast majority of burglaries (to the extent they're even still a thing these days) are opportunist crimes - they'll be looking for a property which is easy to get in and out of right now, not spending weeks casing properties on Rightmove and trying to guess the specifications of people's computers. And almost all properties will contain something worth stealing, enough to pay for a junkie's next fix anyway.

There will of course be different security considerations if you have a seriously large amount of valuables.

Yes, I imagine a burglar will have a fair chance of finding something easily stealable/sellable in most houses these days - laptop, ipad, x box etc. When I was little the only things of high value in the house were a TV and a hi-fi system, both of which weighed more than me 

Grumpy_chap

BobT36 said:

The landlord's void period is NONE of the tenant's concern, while the tenancy is still active. 

Otherwise, the landlord's "business costs" (non-tenant caused repairs, void periods, taxes etc.) are nothing to do with the tenant, that's just a cost of doing business, and the landlord should factor that into their costs accordingly like any other business would. They should be thankful enough they're in the privileged position to own additional property. 

You are correct but, taken in the round, it is in the interest of tenants (as a collective) to allow for remarketing in advance of departure so that void periods (across all properties in aggregate) are reduced.

If the custom becomes that a property cannot be re-marketed until the tenant has vacated, that will create a void period, say two months, between every tenancy ending and the new tenant moving in.  The LL will then factor in 2 months of void for every 12-month AST and rental rates will increase.

It will also mean that properties are unoccupied for 2 months between tenancies and that has the effect of reducing the number of available properties (same number of tenants, but more unoccupied properties in void) and hence impacts the supply and demand equation pushing rents up.

Each individual tenant has to take the decision that is correct for them with regard to supporting (or not) the remarketing ahead of departure.  If the behaviour of the majority becomes to refuse remarketing, then the upshot is that rent has to increase when the landlord factors the inevitable void into their costs of doing business.

Herzlos

user1977 said:

BobT36 said:

pennyunwise said:

Skiddaw1 said:

Seems to me it goes beyond what's lawful and what isn't. IMO it would have been common curtesy to at least run it by the tenant first before making the video. I'm sure some people wouldn't have a problem with it at all and others would be fine with it if given the opportunity to move anything they didn't want filmed but it wouldn't have hurt to ask surely?

The fact is the agent didn’t need a video. They had photos and the opportunity to do do viewings. The agent said the property would let within a day of being advertised - which it did. 

However the agent did not post the video online until 2 weeks after the property was relet and now won’t remove it. What is the purpose of it staying online for all to see, and anyone enquiring is simply told the property has been let and is no longer available.

Surely the agent has an obligation to the tenant to remove the video, after all they have removed all the advertising photos etc from Rightmove etc but not the video which remains on YouTube.

I'm really suprised burglars don't use any (obviously current) pictures and vids to have a nice little "case" of a property and decide what to steal, especially as if it's on the market, everything is soon likely to be nice and packed ready for a quick getaway. 

I'm not. The vast majority of burglaries (to the extent they're even still a thing these days) are opportunist crimes - they'll be looking for a property which is easy to get in and out of right now, not spending weeks casing properties on Rightmove and trying to guess the specifications of people's computers. And almost all properties will contain something worth stealing, enough to pay for a junkie's next fix anyway.

There will of course be different security considerations if you have a seriously large amount of valuables.

I agree; unless the photos show something exceptional then it's not really a risk. I've seen a few listings recently with lots of really expensive bikes in them, and the estate agent seemed surprised I'd asked him not to take any photos of my garage with bikes.


That aside, what was OP expecting when a letting agent was showing people round? I assume photos and videos of a property are standard now, and anything expensive/embarassing would be hidden before letting strangers wander around?

I certainly took anything valuable away for the listing and then again for the viewings. But maybe that's a position of privilege since I can hide a lot of stuff in the car.