On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:00:14 +0100, judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:10:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:05:04 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

Not as a general rule, no. But, if you're a tenant, and you report
that something is broken and needs fixing, it's not unreasonable for
the landlord to assume that the report constitutes an invitation to
enter in order to fix it. That's what normally happens, anyway.

You use the work "normal" a lot. Normal in what context?

Normal in the context of my own experience and that of other people I
know.


I will be surprised if anyone else admits to this "normal" behaviour
of allowing unknown people to enter their house whilst they are not
there for whatever purpose.

I'd be surprised, too, since that's nothing like what I've described
as normal. Please go back and read the thread properly.

Mark

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:00:14 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:10:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:05:04 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

Not as a general rule, no. But, if you're a tenant, and you report
that something is broken and needs fixing, it's not unreasonable for
the landlord to assume that the report constitutes an invitation to
enter in order to fix it. That's what normally happens, anyway.

You use the work "normal" a lot. Normal in what context?

Normal in the context of my own experience and that of other people I
know.


I will be surprised if anyone else admits to this "normal" behaviour
of allowing unknown people to enter their house whilst they are not
there for whatever purpose.

Anyone?


Me.

I've got a good relationship with my landlord, he only employs people
he trusts, I'm at work during the times workmen like to work so I'm
grateful that when problems arise they get sorted out in a no-nonsense
way. When they work, human relationships work much better than legal
relationships IMO but legal relationships are necessary for when human
relationships don't.

Nick
--
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

judith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:10:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:05:04 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:
Not as a general rule, no. But, if you're a tenant, and you report
that something is broken and needs fixing, it's not unreasonable for
the landlord to assume that the report constitutes an invitation to
enter in order to fix it. That's what normally happens, anyway.
You use the work "normal" a lot. Normal in what context?

Normal in the context of my own experience and that of other people I
know.


I will be surprised if anyone else admits to this "normal" behaviour
of allowing unknown people to enter their house whilst they are not
there for whatever purpose.

Anyone?


I agree with you.

I can't see many owner occupiers giving an unknown workman a key to
enter their house as and when just because the workman is needed to do a
minor repair job. So why would someone who is a tenant be expected to
throw all caution to the wind and do the complete opposite of a house
owner and allow unsupervised access is beyond me.

A home is a home, regardless of the status of how it is occupied and I'd
imagine most people would feel uncomfortable that someone unknown was
opening the front door and entering their home without someone being
there to supervise them.

--
Robbie

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:55:04 +0100, judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:50:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

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.


Do you really believe this. I would never let an unknown person in to
my house on his own; I cannot imagine that any sensible person would
do so either.

If you're a tenant, it's not "your" house, it's the landlord's house.
You're simply paying for the right to occupy it. And people sent round
by the landlord to carry out maintenance may be unknown to you, but
they are not unknown to the landlord or his agent. You don't have the
option of "never" allowing someone unknown to you in the house on his
own, as provided the requisite notice is given you don't have any
right to refuse access.

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.

Mark

Mark Goodge wrote in
house.net:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:00:14 +0100, judith put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:10:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:05:04 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

Not as a general rule, no. But, if you're a tenant, and you
report that something is broken and needs fixing, it's not
unreasonable for the landlord to assume that the report
constitutes an invitation to enter in order to fix it. That's
what normally happens, anyway.

You use the work "normal" a lot. Normal in what context?

Normal in the context of my own experience and that of other
people I know.


I will be surprised if anyone else admits to this "normal"
behaviour of allowing unknown people to enter their house whilst
they are not there for whatever purpose.

I'd be surprised, too, since that's nothing like what I've
described as normal. Please go back and read the thread properly.

Mark



I suspect there is a gender difference here, or possibly only
partially, as I share the strong, emotional objection to a landlord
or his agent wandering in to fix something while I am out which all
the female persons I have ever gathered the opinions of would hold.
We would be both morally and personally outraged by the idea that
anyone could do that. I don't doubt there are a subset of tenants
like Mark who have no difficulty with the idea: perhaps they had a
public school upbringing which prepared them for communal living. I
think with many tenants such conduct would be highly dangerous for
said handyman should the tenant come home and find him at work.

Perhaps this is an issue of principle which landlords or their
agents should sort out at the beginning of every tenancy - and a
practical point with heterosexual couples: ask the female one!


--
Percy Picacity

In message , at 15:55:04 on
Sun, 20 Jul 2008, judith remarked:
I would never let an unknown person in to my house on his own; I
cannot imagine that any sensible person would do so either.

Are your electricity and gas meters outside?
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:25:16 +0100, Robbie put finger to keyboard and
typed:

I can't see many owner occupiers giving an unknown workman a key to
enter their house as and when just because the workman is needed to do a
minor repair job. So why would someone who is a tenant be expected to
throw all caution to the wind and do the complete opposite of a house
owner and allow unsupervised access is beyond me.

Because it's not their house, they're not paying the workman and they
can't realistically expect to always be able to supervise any work
that the landlord arranges (unless they either don't work or they're
prepared to take time off at short notice just to be there when work
is in progress).

A home is a home, regardless of the status of how it is occupied and I'd
imagine most people would feel uncomfortable that someone unknown was
opening the front door and entering their home without someone being
there to supervise them.

The "someone" would normally be the owner or his representative.

Mark

Mark Goodge ] said:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:55:04 +0100, judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:50:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

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.


Do you really believe this. I would never let an unknown person in to
my house on his own; I cannot imagine that any sensible person would
do so either.

If you're a tenant, it's not "your" house, it's the landlord's house.
You're simply paying for the right to occupy it. And people sent round
by the landlord to carry out maintenance may be unknown to you, but
they are not unknown to the landlord or his agent. You don't have the
option of "never" allowing someone unknown to you in the house on his
own, as provided the requisite notice is given you don't have any
right to refuse access.

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.

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.

Roland Perry ] said:
In message , at 15:55:04 on
Sun, 20 Jul 2008, judith remarked:
I would never let an unknown person in to my house on his own; I
cannot imagine that any sensible person would do so either.

Are your electricity and gas meters outside?

Metermen (without a court order) do not let themselves into your home
when you are out. Or do you know some the rest of us do not? :-)

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