Mark Goodge posted

The contract doesn't force the landlord to give 24 hours notice. It
merely states that, provided he does, you can't refuse to let him in.
He is entitled to call round at any reasonable time even without
notice, and if he hasn't given notice then it's up to you whether to
let him in or not.

Quite. So far, the landlord is in the same position as the guy selling
blue dishcloths door to door. If he enters without permission, he is a
criminal.

If the landlord (or his agent) sends a workman round to fix something
while you're out without giving notice, then you do have the right to
refuse him access (provided, of course, it's not an emergency). But
many - probably most - tenants are usually happy for things to get
fixed as soon as possible when they need fixing, and often prefer the
work to be done while they're out as it's less disruptive to them.

Really? What is your evidence for this? It sounds to me like pure
assumption, and in fact more likely to be false than true.

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry the
freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should assume he can
waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What is different in
principle?

I'll tell you what. If it *was* a freeholder-leaseholder arrangement, a
court would have no hesitation whatsoever in finding against a
freeholder who forced entry. None at all.

So
the agent may well have simply assumed you fall into that group -
especially if the visit was in response to a matter which you reported
as being in need of attention.

So, where you stand is that you need to let the agent know that you'd
prefer not to have workmen coming round without notice, unless it is
an emergency.

No, where he stands is that the agent needs to give him 24 hours notice
of when he proposes to come in. That's what the agreement says, and
failing any other arrangement that's what the landlord should respect.

--
Les