On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:30:17 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

Given that the landlord has an absolute right to enter the house, or
send someone else round to enter it, provided he gives at least 24
hours notice, it's no big deal to let him do the same with less than
24 hours notice if that's more convenient for both of you. Obviously,
you don't have to offer that convenience, but most tenants are, in my
experience, usually willing to do so when it's in their own interests.

But in all the situations you describe the tenant has the option to be
home.

Not always, not if they have a job (or they are students, or anything
which requires their attndance elsewhere). Not all tenants are
unemployed.

We have been discussing, prior to this point, the case where the tenant
is not given this option because the workman has just turned up and let
them self in. From my understanding of your posts, you consider this
acceptable, indeed normal, and state that many tenants are grateful for
it if it means they get their minor repairs sorted out quickly - and
this is the opinion that is causing disagreement.

I don't consider it's acceptable for a workman to turn up without
notice unless the tenant is amenable to it. I do think that most
tenants would be amenable to it where it involves work that they
themselves have requested be done. And I think it's an understandable
mistake, therefore, if a landlord simply assumes that the tenant wants
the work done as quickly as possible, with or without formal notice,
rather than taking the time to check the tenant's wishes on the
matter.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not disputing that the
landlord is, as far as the law is concerned, probably in the wrong in
the situation described by the OP[1]. My point is simply that the
landlord (or his agent) in that story is probably guilty of nothing
more than an unwarranted assumption which could easily be corrected by
a little effort at communication. Posting to a legal newsgroup asking
for advice on rights and what to do when the landlord is in breach of
contract seems, to me, to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

[1] I think there may well be a case for the argument that requesting
maintenance carries with it implied permission to attend the property
in order to meet the request. But that's a separate issue here.

Mark