Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge posted
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.

It's my experience as a tenant, and the experience of people I know
who have been tenants. When we reported a problem to the landlord or
his agent, we expected it to get fixed pronto. If we came home from
work the following day to find that it had been fixed in our absence,
that would have been considered excellent service.

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?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.

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.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But when the visit is in response to
a maintenance request from the tenant, it's not unreasonable to assume
that the request constitutes permission to enter.

Mark


No, that is not correct. It IS unreasonable to assume that the request
constitutes permission to enter the property unannounced while the
tenant is not there. While a tenant has to allow the landlord reasonable
access to the property for repairs, so long as there is a tenancy in
place, the tenant "owns" the property in the respect that it is their
home and the landlord has no right of immediate access except in very
limited circumstances, which do not apply here.

I would go as far as saying that the landlord, or anyone acting on their
behalf, are compromising security. If I were renting, I would want to
know that while I were out of the property it was safe and secure. Not
to have the property as such normally invalidates insurance policies.

The Shelter website goes as far as saying that a landlord entering a
property without permission, especially when the tenant is not there,
can constitute harassment. The tenant has made it clear he does not like
this situation - he needs to convey this to the letting agent involved.
If this is ignored then it can become a criminal offence - of harassment.

--
Robbie