On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge posted


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.

Really? What is your evidence for this? It sounds to me like pure
assumption, and in fact more likely to be false than true.

It's my experience as a tenant, and the experience of people I know
who have been tenants. When we reported a problem to the landlord or
his agent, we expected it to get fixed pronto. If we came home from
work the following day to find that it had been fixed in our absence,
that would have been considered excellent service.

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry the
freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should assume he can
waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What is different in
principle?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.

No, where he stands is that the agent needs to give him 24 hours notice
of when he proposes to come in. That's what the agreement says, and
failing any other arrangement that's what the landlord should respect.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But when the visit is in response to
a maintenance request from the tenant, it's not unreasonable to assume
that the request constitutes permission to enter.

Mark

Mark Goodge ] said:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:25:15 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

The landlord can't breach this clause of the contract because it
doesn't apply to him - it's a clause which binds, you, the tenant to
allow acess when given sufficient notice, not a clause which binds him
to give it. However, entering the property without giving notice when
you have explicitly requested otherwise could be construed as
harrasssment, which is a criminal offence. It would take rather more
than sending a handyman round when you're out, though, for that to be
the case.

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.

If the handyman was sent in response to a request from the tant to fix
something, then it would be quite normal.

Aside from that, it is completely unreasonable for *anyone* to assume it
is OK to enter someone's home without prior arrangement and I taken
aback that you think otherwise - in fact you seem to suggest it is
rather odd of the OP to also be of this opinion. Surely, no one expects
to come home to discover someone has just left themselves in while they
were out.... do they?

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? I'm not trying
to be difficult here, it's just that I have never come across this as
being considered normal before while I have heard complaints from
tenants before, which is why many routinely change locks when they move
in.

And asking for something to be fixed constituting an invitation to
enter? Now that would be totally *unreasonable* in my opinion. Gosh,
imagine you were asleep in bed when the doorbell rings followed by
someone unlocking your door and entering your home! It doesn't bear
thinking about.

Mark Goodge ] said:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry the
freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should assume he can
waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What is different in
principle?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.

So you are saying the tenant's rights do not not include a ban on the
landlord et all entering his home with out prior agreement (excluding
emergencies of course)?

I think you need to cite some law at this point.

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge posted
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.
Really? What is your evidence for this? It sounds to me like pure
assumption, and in fact more likely to be false than true.

It's my experience as a tenant, and the experience of people I know
who have been tenants. When we reported a problem to the landlord or
his agent, we expected it to get fixed pronto. If we came home from
work the following day to find that it had been fixed in our absence,
that would have been considered excellent service.

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry the
freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should assume he can
waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What is different in
principle?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.

No, where he stands is that the agent needs to give him 24 hours notice
of when he proposes to come in. That's what the agreement says, and
failing any other arrangement that's what the landlord should respect.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But when the visit is in response to
a maintenance request from the tenant, it's not unreasonable to assume
that the request constitutes permission to enter.

Mark


No, that is not correct. It IS unreasonable to assume that the request
constitutes permission to enter the property unannounced while the
tenant is not there. While a tenant has to allow the landlord reasonable
access to the property for repairs, so long as there is a tenancy in
place, the tenant "owns" the property in the respect that it is their
home and the landlord has no right of immediate access except in very
limited circumstances, which do not apply here.

I would go as far as saying that the landlord, or anyone acting on their
behalf, are compromising security. If I were renting, I would want to
know that while I were out of the property it was safe and secure. Not
to have the property as such normally invalidates insurance policies.

The Shelter website goes as far as saying that a landlord entering a
property without permission, especially when the tenant is not there,
can constitute harassment. The tenant has made it clear he does not like
this situation - he needs to convey this to the letting agent involved.
If this is ignored then it can become a criminal offence - of harassment.

--
Robbie

Yellow wrote:

Mark Goodge ] said:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry
the freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should
assume he can waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What
is different in principle?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.

So you are saying the tenant's rights do not not include a ban on the
landlord et all entering his home with out prior agreement (excluding
emergencies of course)?

I think you need to cite some law at this point.

from what the op has said here and other groups , they reported taps
leaking , from the landlords POV this could warrant the argument that
it was an emergency

--

Robbie wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge posted
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.
Really? What is your evidence for this? It sounds to me like pure
assumption, and in fact more likely to be false than true.

It's my experience as a tenant, and the experience of people I know
who have been tenants. When we reported a problem to the landlord or
his agent, we expected it to get fixed pronto. If we came home from
work the following day to find that it had been fixed in our
absence, that would have been considered excellent service.

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry
the freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should
assume he can waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What
is different in principle?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.
No, where he stands is that the agent needs to give him 24 hours
notice of when he proposes to come in. That's what the agreement
says, and failing any other arrangement that's what the landlord
should respect.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But when the visit is in response
to a maintenance request from the tenant, it's not unreasonable to
assume that the request constitutes permission to enter.

Mark


No, that is not correct. It IS unreasonable to assume that the
request constitutes permission to enter the property unannounced
while the tenant is not there. While a tenant has to allow the
landlord reasonable access to the property for repairs, so long as
there is a tenancy in place, the tenant "owns" the property in the
respect that it is their home and the landlord has no right of
immediate access except in very limited circumstances, which do not
apply here.

I would go as far as saying that the landlord, or anyone acting on
their behalf, are compromising security. If I were renting, I would
want to know that while I were out of the property it was safe and
secure. Not to have the property as such normally invalidates
insurance policies.

The Shelter website goes as far as saying that a landlord entering a
property without permission, especially when the tenant is not there,
can constitute harassment. The tenant has made it clear he does not
like this situation - he needs to convey this to the letting agent
involved. If this is ignored then it can become a criminal offence -
of harassment.

The tenant never owns the property , they only have the exclusive
right to live in the property for a minimum set time as long as they
comply with the tenates of the contract


If the tenant rang the letting agent and said something like my taps
are leaking/ broken can you come an fix them then this may constitute
an emergency , it certainly could appear to be an invitation to come
round asap to deal with the problem .It certainly wouldnt constitute
harrasement

The op should be grateful she/ he has a landlord that takes
maintainance seriously and a letting agent that actually gives a fig .

It really does sound like a lack of communication or a
misunderastanding as to the nature of the maintaince needed

I am sure if his / her concerns were conveyed to the landlord / letting
agent then the problem is likely to be resolved


There really is no point getting all legal over the problem unless you
wish to move shortly

On Jul 18, 10:40 am, "Trent SC" wrote:


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?


About 116 years ago the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company offered to pay
100 pounds to anyone who used their smoke balls as directed but still
got the 'flu. Mrs Calill used it and got the 'flu and the court
awarded her
the 100 pounds and it was upheld on appeal. The case is taught in
law
schools around the world.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill...e_Ball_Company
and
http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_r9321042.html

Actually I think that Mrs Calill and Ms Donoghue (who found the snail
in her ginger beer) were extremely stroppy
women and have lots to answer for.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

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'm not trying
to be difficult here, it's just that I have never come across this as
being considered normal before while I have heard complaints from
tenants before, which is why many routinely change locks when they move
in.

Changing the locks is often a breach of the tenancy agreement. It's
certainly not at all normal. If you deal mainly with people who do
that, then your experience is the untypical one.

And asking for something to be fixed constituting an invitation to
enter? Now that would be totally *unreasonable* in my opinion. Gosh,
imagine you were asleep in bed when the doorbell rings followed by
someone unlocking your door and entering your home! It doesn't bear
thinking about.

I would expect it to happen at a reasonable time. Workmen normally
work during the day; so do I. So if I phone the landlord or his agent
and report a fault with the property, the chances are that the workman
will need access to fix it at a time when I'm not at home. In that
case, it's actually beneficial for me if the agent can give him access
without needing me to sort it out for him.

Mark

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:10:05 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry the
freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should assume he can
waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What is different in
principle?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.

So you are saying the tenant's rights do not not include a ban on the
landlord et all entering his home with out prior agreement (excluding
emergencies of course)?

The landlord may not enter *without* permission, except in emergencies
or where at least 24 hours notice has been given. The landlord may
enter *with* permission at any time.

The "24 hour" rule doesn't mean that the landlord must give that
amount of notice before any attempt to enter. It means that the tenant
can refuse to allow access if insufficient notice is given. So if the
landlord knocks on your door one evening, without giving prior notice,
and asks if he can come in to fix something, then you are entitled to
say no if you want to. But, equally, you may choose to permit him to
enter. No law is being broken if you do so, even though he hasn't
given any notice.

The issue raised by this particular thread is whether a maintenance
request by the tenant carries with it implied permission to enter in
order to fulfil the request. Strictly speaking, in legal terms, it
probably doesn't. But, in practical terms, many landlords and tenants
behave as though it does. If the landlord makes that assumption and
the tenant doesn't, then the landlord is, in strict terms, acting
illegally. But it would take more than a simple misunderstanding of
this nature for the landlord to be guilty of harrassment. And, to
answer the specific question posed by the original post, no breach of
contract has occurred because this is an area that is regulated by
law, not by the contract.

Mark

steve robinson ] said:
Yellow wrote:

Mark Goodge ] said:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:30:12 +0100, Les Invalides put finger to
keyboard and typed:

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry
the freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should
assume he can waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What
is different in principle?

It's different in principle because it's different in law. A
leaseholder has an entirely different set of rights to a tenant.

So you are saying the tenant's rights do not not include a ban on the
landlord et all entering his home with out prior agreement (excluding
emergencies of course)?

I think you need to cite some law at this point.

from what the op has said here and other groups , they reported taps
leaking , from the landlords POV this could warrant the argument that
it was an emergency

Hardly. Unless the water had needed to be turned off.