On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:40:21 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

But, in practical terms, many landlords and tenants
behave as though it does. If the landlord makes that assumption and
the tenant doesn't, then the landlord is, in strict terms, acting
illegally. But it would take more than a simple misunderstanding of
this nature for the landlord to be guilty of harrassment. And, to
answer the specific question posed by the original post, no breach of
contract has occurred because this is an area that is regulated by
law, not by the contract.

If the landlord enters a tenant's home without permission when there is
no emergency (and it is at all hard to define what is, and what is not,
a *real* emergency - and a dripping tap is not one) then they are quite
simply in the wrong.

From a strictly legal perspective, yes. But most tenants wouldn't care
about a landlord entering without notice in order to fix a problem
that they had previously reported as needing attention, so long as it
was at a reasonable time of day. However, some tenants would care, and
are more concerned to ensure that the landlord goes strictly by the
book than they are to get maintenance issues addressed as promptly as
possible. What the landlord (or his agent) ought to do, therefore,
when a problem is reported is to ask the tenant whether it's OK to
send a workman round as soon as it can be arranged, even if that means
sending someone at short or no notice, or whether the tenant wants to
insist on having an appointment made with at least 24 hours notice.
But, in practice, given that the majority of tenants will, if asked
that question, say that they want it fixed as soon as possible rather
than wait for an arranged appointment, the question tends not to be
asked and the answer is assumed to be that an appointment is not
necessary. This may well be a mistaken assumption, but it's not an
unreasonable one.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the situation described by
the OP doesn't look like that of a landlord attempting to ride
roughshod over the tenant's rights, but more like a simple
misunderstanding caused by too many assumptions and too little
communication. Rather than jump to conclusions and making a legal
issue of it, the OP would be better advised to simply let the agent
know that he wants to have the required notice at all times rather
than allowing the agent to act as if he has implied permission. If,
after being informed of this, the agent continues to send workmen
round without giving sufficient notice, then further action may well
be necessary (including possibly a complaint to the landlord to say
that his agent is being unreasonable, or even some form of legal
action against the landlord himself for permitting the agent to act in
that way). But it does no harm to start off with an assumption of good
faith and simple error, rather than malice, and it will make the OP's
life a lot easier in the long run if he can clear this up with a
little bit of communication rather than creating a potentially nasty
conflict with his landlord.

Mark