On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:55:03 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

For the umpteenth time, I am not talking about a situation where there
is "no warning". I'm talking about a situation where the tenant has
informed the landlord that something needs fixing, and therefore has
reasonable grounds to expect that someone will attempt to fix it.

Mark

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:15:12 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:55:03 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

For the umpteenth time, I am not talking about a situation where there
is "no warning". I'm talking about a situation where the tenant has
informed the landlord that something needs fixing, and therefore has
reasonable grounds to expect that someone will attempt to fix it.

I have been in that exact situation with several landlords and all have
informed me that somebody would be coming round on a specific day. I
would have been very annoyed if I found they had let themselves in
without my knowledge. More so if it was only the workman and not the
landlord or letting agent rep as well.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:15:12 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:55:03 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

For the umpteenth time, I am not talking about a situation where there
is "no warning".

Why do you believe that?

I'm talking about a situation where the tenant has
informed the landlord that something needs fixing, and therefore has
reasonable grounds to expect that someone will attempt to fix it.

So what?

That *still* does not give the right of entry without prior
arrangements (i.e WITH NO WARNING).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You're not paranoid if everybody is really after you.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:40:08 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:55:03 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

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.

You would do that even after he told you he had been sent by the landlord
to fix something?

If he could produce written evidence that the landlord had sent him,
then I would just eject him as a trespasser.



And what exactly would the police arrest him for? No burglary, no
breaking-and-entry. Even if you did what you claimed, they would find it a
classic case of "it's a civil matter, sir". On the other hand, you may
have a serious problem explaining your false arrest and imprisonment.


There wouldn't be any.


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.

And so that gives you a right to imprison some poor plumber who was doing
nothing worse than obeying the well intentioned orders of your landlord?


He would have had NO right to enter my property.

And on finding somebody within my property (that I had left locked)
without any prior arrangements or knowledge of the person, I would be
perfectly entitled to work on the basis that he had broken in unless
and until he could prove otherwise.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
news
That *still* does not give the right of entry without prior
arrangements (i.e WITH NO WARNING).
So what are you going to do about it? Hold the repairman hostage?
Perhaps you can enforce all these rights. Perhaps your landlord will in
future be very tardy with repairs. Who has won?

In message , at 22:35:10 on
Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Alex Heney remarked:

He would have had NO right to enter my property.

But it's the landlord's property.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:35:04 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:15:12 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:55:03 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

For the umpteenth time, I am not talking about a situation where there
is "no warning".

Why do you believe that?

Because that's what the original thread was about.

I'm talking about a situation where the tenant has
informed the landlord that something needs fixing, and therefore has
reasonable grounds to expect that someone will attempt to fix it.

So what?

That *still* does not give the right of entry without prior
arrangements (i.e WITH NO WARNING).

It doesn't give him the right of entry, no. We've already established
that. I'm just pointing out that it's not unreasonable for a tenant to
be happy for someone to fix a problem as soon as possible rather than
wait for a time when an appointment can be arranged.

Mark

In message e.net, at
07:45:12 on Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Mark Goodge
remarked:
I'm just pointing out that it's not unreasonable for a tenant to
be happy for someone to fix a problem as soon as possible rather than
wait for a time when an appointment can be arranged.

It can be a huge PITA. I spent three weeks one February waiting in
almost every day as a series of British Gas fitters (it had a
maintenance contract) failed to fix the central heating boiler.

(The fix was eventually achieved by a fitter from the manufacturers).

As luck would have it (if that's the correct expression) I was also off
sick, so staying in wasn't a huge inconvenience, but what if I'd been
going out to work every day?

About two weeks into this fiasco we discovered that the landlord knew
the boiler was defective, but had failed to turn up on two occasions to
meet BG by appointment in the month before we moved in. He then moved
overseas, and the rental agents were the most unhelpful I have ever
encountered (they failed several times to deliver on a promise of
delivering an electric heater to give us some hot water to wash in). So
if someone suggests "the agents should meet the fitters and chaperone
them", then I'd just laugh.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:45:12 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:35:04 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:15:12 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:55:03 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

For the umpteenth time, I am not talking about a situation where there
is "no warning".

Why do you believe that?

Because that's what the original thread was about.

No it wasn't.

The OP said
-----------------------------------------
Just had my Landlord's Agent call me to say he has a "Handy man"
outside my house trying to gain access with a key to do some repairs.
He failed (luckily) as the lock is a bit dodgy.
----------------------------------------

There was nothing in the OP to suggest he had even asked for any
repairs to be carried out, but even if he had it is still "with no
warning" unless the landlord has at the very least told them "Acme
repair services will be coming to do the work on Friday" or something
similar.



I'm talking about a situation where the tenant has
informed the landlord that something needs fixing, and therefore has
reasonable grounds to expect that someone will attempt to fix it.

So what?

That *still* does not give the right of entry without prior
arrangements (i.e WITH NO WARNING).

It doesn't give him the right of entry, no. We've already established
that. I'm just pointing out that it's not unreasonable for a tenant to
be happy for someone to fix a problem as soon as possible rather than
wait for a time when an appointment can be arranged.

You might not think it unreasonable.

I would, if I were a tenant.

And the law would be on my side.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Murphy was an optimist.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:25:16 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 22:35:10 on
Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Alex Heney remarked:

He would have had NO right to enter my property.

But it's the landlord's property.

And by virtue of the rental agreement between us, he would have a right
to enter in an emergency, with notice given, or with my express
permission.

He would have no right to enter on a whim.