In message , at 17:25:13
on Wed, 23 Jul 2008, PCPaul 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.

But it's still his property.
--
Roland Perry

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
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


Hi all

Thanks for all your replies.

To stop some of this debate, I will clarify some facts.

The taps (well, just the cold tap) has been leaking since the day we moved
in (3 years!). We have complained numerous times, and it has been repaired
twice. Neither of the repairs managed to fix the 25yo tap. It still leaked.

Both times, the Landlord's Agent (one of the UK's largest letting agents)
followed their procedure to the letter :

a. Send tenant a letter stating a date for the engineer visit, and give the
tenant/s the option to ; be present or not, or rearrange for a different
date
b. Wait for reply from tenant
c. Send engineer round according to the wishes of tenant

On every occasion I received this letter, our answer was the same. I will
gladly take a day holiday to supervise a workman in my home. Likewise I wont
trust any random workman in my home alone.

However on this occasion this didn't happen. Two weeks before my OP, I had
complained that the hot tap was now leaking (I was chasing a repair, for the
2nd or 3rd time). Two weeks later I had completely forgotten about the issue
(by now, I had forced the tap closed so it was barely dripping. my GF
couldn't open it, but we used a different tap, so it was ok for the time
being). We were just waiting for a letter just like previous occasions.

The next thing I know, I have an engineer outside trying to gain access!

I'm not posting here to get advise TO take legal action, I just want to know
what COULD be done if this carries on.

Regards

Bongman


P.S. And sorry to the original, OP where I somehow managed to take over
their thread!

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:10:08 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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

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.

Actually, the OP has said, in another place, that it was in response
to his own maintenance request (I believe a leaky tap was mentioned).
But my initial response wasn't assuming this to be the case, it was
merely postulating it as a situation where it would be reasonable for
the tenant to be expecting a visit from a handyman. It would be a lot
less reasonable if the tenant hadn't requested any maintenance, and
therefore had no reason to expect a visit.

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.

You might not want anyone to visit, ever, without either an
appointment or as required by an emergency. That's your right. But
that still doesn't make it unreasonable for others to have a different
opinion. I'm not saying that all tenants should be happy to accept a
visit without an appointment, I'm merely pointing out that it's not
uncommon to do so. It would be more unreasonable to insist that they
can't offer that flexibility if they have a good enough relationship
with their landlord for that to be beneficial.

And the law would be on my side.

Of course it would. But making a legal issue out of what is far more
likely to have been a simple misunderstanding is not really a sensible
response. And my impression, from the OP's comments both here and
elsewhere, is that that's what he's doing.

Mark

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:45:07 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:25:13
on Wed, 23 Jul 2008, PCPaul 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.

But it's still his property.

Undoubtedly. But he still has no right to enter any time just because he
feels like it. That's part of what your rent is paying for. A rental
agreement is a contract. If he didn't want to give up the right to enter
on a whim, he shouldn't have signed the agreement.

In message , at
19:55:02 on Wed, 23 Jul 2008, PCPaul remarked:
He would have no right to enter on a whim.

But it's still his property.

Undoubtedly. But he still has no right to enter any time just because he
feels like it.

In which case we agree on all points.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:55:14 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:55:02 +0100, PCPaul wrote:

Undoubtedly. But he still has no right to enter any time just because
he feels like it. That's part of what your rent is paying for. A rental
agreement is a contract. If he didn't want to give up the right to
enter on a whim, he shouldn't have signed the agreement.

Accepting all that still does not criminalize one entry with no intent
to harass and so Alex's hypothetical intention to arrest or imprison
anyone who did that would be criminal acts on his own part.

I'll be round later...

Seriously, though, I can't see any problem with apprehending someone
found inside *your* home without *your* permission, and calling the
Police.

"PCPaul" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:55:14 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:55:02 +0100, PCPaul wrote:

Undoubtedly. But he still has no right to enter any time just because
he feels like it. That's part of what your rent is paying for. A rental
agreement is a contract. If he didn't want to give up the right to
enter on a whim, he shouldn't have signed the agreement.

Accepting all that still does not criminalize one entry with no intent
to harass and so Alex's hypothetical intention to arrest or imprison
anyone who did that would be criminal acts on his own part.

I'll be round later...

Seriously, though, I can't see any problem with apprehending someone
found inside *your* home without *your* permission, and calling the
Police.

Beacuse it would quickly become clear that the guy was a handyman come to
make the repair you requested.

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:55:02 +0100, PCPaul wrote:

Undoubtedly. But he still has no right to enter any time just because he
feels like it. That's part of what your rent is paying for. A rental
agreement is a contract. If he didn't want to give up the right to enter
on a whim, he shouldn't have signed the agreement.

Accepting all that still does not criminalize one entry with no intent to
harass and so Alex's hypothetical intention to arrest or imprison anyone
who did that would be criminal acts on his own part.

Tony


The original poster wrote this:

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.

(part of post snipped)

I would just like to know where we stand. We have suspected someone has
been in our house without our consent previously. Only now has the
Landlords Agent admitted the attempt.


It seems like the OP is concerned that the landlord or agent has
previously entered the property. In his shoes I'd not want anyone
attempting to access the property without me being there.

--
Robbie

Mark Goodge ] said:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:10:08 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
and typed:
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.

Actually, the OP has said, in another place, that it was in response
to his own maintenance request (I believe a leaky tap was mentioned).
But my initial response wasn't assuming this to be the case, it was
merely postulating it as a situation where it would be reasonable for
the tenant to be expecting a visit from a handyman. It would be a lot
less reasonable if the tenant hadn't requested any maintenance, and
therefore had no reason to expect a visit.

With respect, isn't this enough now? I think we[1] understand your point
it's just that many of us disagree with it and reposting your same
opinion over and over each time people explain why they disagree with it
isn't really progressing the discussion.

{1] If I may be so bold.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:20:09 +0100, mert1639 wrote:

"PCPaul" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:55:14 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:55:02 +0100, PCPaul wrote:

Undoubtedly. But he still has no right to enter any time just because
he feels like it. That's part of what your rent is paying for. A
rental agreement is a contract. If he didn't want to give up the
right to enter on a whim, he shouldn't have signed the agreement.

Accepting all that still does not criminalize one entry with no intent
to harass and so Alex's hypothetical intention to arrest or imprison
anyone who did that would be criminal acts on his own part.

I'll be round later...

Seriously, though, I can't see any problem with apprehending someone
found inside *your* home without *your* permission, and calling the
Police.

Beacuse it would quickly become clear that the guy was a handyman come
to make the repair you requested.

And once that was clear I would (probably) let them carry on, or at least
get them to arrange another time.

But *before* they were identified as such, are you suggesting I should
just let them wander about the house as much as they like?