Robbie wrote:

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.

The tenant never owns the property , they only have the exclusive
right to live in the property for a minimum set time as long as they
comply with the tenates of the contract


If the tenant rang the letting agent and said something like my taps
are leaking/ broken can you come an fix them then this may constitute
an emergency , it certainly could appear to be an invitation to come
round asap to deal with the problem .It certainly wouldnt constitute
harrasement

The op should be grateful she/ he has a landlord that takes
maintainance seriously and a letting agent that actually gives a fig .

It really does sound like a lack of communication or a
misunderastanding as to the nature of the maintaince needed

I am sure if his / her concerns were conveyed to the landlord / letting
agent then the problem is likely to be resolved


There really is no point getting all legal over the problem unless you
wish to move shortly