Mark Goodge wrote:

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.

I suspect that if that is the case then many tenants are careless about
security. The tenant would have no way of knowing if the workman were
supervised or not, and I certainly wouldn't let someone into my home to
wander about as they please.

Then again I'm not a tenant.

Mark Goodge ] said:
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.

The key word was "option" ie they are aware someone is coming! It might
even be possible to negotiate the time of the visit or have a trusted
neighbour, friend or relative to help out as long as it is known someone
is coming on a given day.

If all else fails, it would give them the opportunity to put away money
and jewelry and the like and put away the sex toys in the bedroom.


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.

Indeed, you are just repeating yourself now. :-)

Steve Firth ] said:
Mark Goodge wrote:

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.

I suspect that if that is the case then many tenants are careless about
security. The tenant would have no way of knowing if the workman were
supervised or not, and I certainly wouldn't let someone into my home to
wander about as they please.

Then again I'm not a tenant.


Hoogstraten famously once said that all tenants are scum but in reality
they are people, just as those who pay mortgages are also people. :-)

In message , at 18:35:03
on Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Yellow 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? :-)

Judith said "letting an unknown person in", not "letting an unknown
person let themselves in".
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:20:05 +0100, Steve Firth put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:

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.

I suspect that if that is the case then many tenants are careless about
security. The tenant would have no way of knowing if the workman were
supervised or not, and I certainly wouldn't let someone into my home to
wander about as they please.

Then again I'm not a tenant.

It depends on how much you trust your landlord, or his agent
(depending on which you normally deal with). I've never had one that I
didn't trust; if I'd ever found myself in a position where I felt that
wasn't the case then I'd have found a new place to live.

I'm not disputing that some landlords are utter *******s. And I'm sure
that there are people posting here who've had experience of them. But,
having seen a fair amount from both sides of the fence, my perception
is that the tenants are more likely to be the problem.

Mark

Roland Perry ] said:
In message , at 18:35:03
on Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Yellow 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? :-)

Judith said "letting an unknown person in", not "letting an unknown
person let themselves in".

Yes, I can see you might read it that way without the context of the
thread topic but by "on their own" she means with her not there.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:40:20 +0100, "Trent SC"
wrote:

I was wondering where the law stands on advertisers, manufacturers and
promoters who make medical claims for foods and household goods such as
shampoos (typically along the lines of "cures cancer", "reverses baldness",
etc).

Are they merely transgressing advertising codes of conduct, or are there
specific laws in place that prevent, say, all but authorised, tested and
peer-reviewed medicines from attracting this sort of promotion?


You seem to be asking about a non-existent practice here.

When was the last time you saw an advert making any such claims?

It is illegal to advertise any medical benefit for your product unless
you can back it up with proper scientific proof.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't force it, use a bigger hammer.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:30:07 +0100, Percy Picacity
wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote in
shouse.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,

Why?

Just because Mark is male, that does not mean any other males share
his views.

I certainly don't.

If I was renting accommodation and came home to find a stranger in the
house without any warning, I would be holding him until the police
arrived, when I would expect him to be arrested and removed by them.

While the landlord certainly has a right (and duty) to maintain and
repair the property, he does NOT have any right to just send somebody
in without prior arrangement, except in an emergency situation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
People who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In message , at 22:35:05
on Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Yellow 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? :-)

Judith said "letting an unknown person in", not "letting an unknown
person let themselves in".

Yes, I can see you might read it that way without the context of the
thread topic but by "on their own" she means with her not there.

Fair enough. I read the "on his own" as meaning "just one person, and
not with a second one to act as a witness".
--
Roland Perry

Yellow wrote:

I am astonished that a handyman would want to enter someone's home while
they are out as they are putting themselves at great risk of being
accused of theft or breakage.

I have in the past arranged for my letting agent to enter my rented
flat without my presence, however I would take great exception were it
to be done without my prior permission.

Neil