Mark Goodge ] said:
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.

I do not think anyone is disagreeing with this.

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.

I do not think anyone is disagreeing with this.

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.

Exactly. :-)

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.

If the landlord enters a tenant's home without permission when there is
no emergency (and it is at all hard to define what is, and what is not,
a *real* emergency - and a dripping tap is not one) then they are quite
simply in the wrong.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:40:21 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

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.

If the landlord enters a tenant's home without permission when there is
no emergency (and it is at all hard to define what is, and what is not,
a *real* emergency - and a dripping tap is not one) then they are quite
simply in the wrong.

From a strictly legal perspective, yes. But most tenants wouldn't care
about a landlord entering without notice in order to fix a problem
that they had previously reported as needing attention, so long as it
was at a reasonable time of day. However, some tenants would care, and
are more concerned to ensure that the landlord goes strictly by the
book than they are to get maintenance issues addressed as promptly as
possible. What the landlord (or his agent) ought to do, therefore,
when a problem is reported is to ask the tenant whether it's OK to
send a workman round as soon as it can be arranged, even if that means
sending someone at short or no notice, or whether the tenant wants to
insist on having an appointment made with at least 24 hours notice.
But, in practice, given that the majority of tenants will, if asked
that question, say that they want it fixed as soon as possible rather
than wait for an arranged appointment, the question tends not to be
asked and the answer is assumed to be that an appointment is not
necessary. This may well be a mistaken assumption, but it's not an
unreasonable one.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the situation described by
the OP doesn't look like that of a landlord attempting to ride
roughshod over the tenant's rights, but more like a simple
misunderstanding caused by too many assumptions and too little
communication. Rather than jump to conclusions and making a legal
issue of it, the OP would be better advised to simply let the agent
know that he wants to have the required notice at all times rather
than allowing the agent to act as if he has implied permission. If,
after being informed of this, the agent continues to send workmen
round without giving sufficient notice, then further action may well
be necessary (including possibly a complaint to the landlord to say
that his agent is being unreasonable, or even some form of legal
action against the landlord himself for permitting the agent to act in
that way). But it does no harm to start off with an assumption of good
faith and simple error, rather than malice, and it will make the OP's
life a lot easier in the long run if he can clear this up with a
little bit of communication rather than creating a potentially nasty
conflict with his landlord.

Mark

"Trent SC" wrote in message
...
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?

Under the recently introduced Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations, misleading practices are prohibited. Falsely claiming that a
product can cure illness, disfunction or malformation is one of 31 practices
that are specifically banned.

Colin Bignell

Yellow wrote:

Mark Goodge ] said:
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.

I do not think anyone is disagreeing with this.

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.

I do not think anyone is disagreeing with this.

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.

Exactly. :-)

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.

If the landlord enters a tenant's home without permission when there
is no emergency (and it is at all hard to define what is, and what is
not, a real emergency - and a dripping tap is not one) then they are
quite simply in the wrong.

It may well be a dripping tap , however how that is conveyed to the
agent or landlord may well give a totally differing response

1) my taps dripping

2) my tap wont turn off properly

3) my taps leaking

All correct discriptions of the same problem from a laypersons pov all
three likely to get a differnt response .

The latter two likely to instill a certain amount of 'speed is of the
essence' into any managing agent or landlord
--

On 19 Jul, 14:40, Yellow wrote:


If the landlord enters a tenant's home without permission when there is
no emergency (and it is at all hard to define what is, and what is not,
a *real* emergency - and a dripping tap is not one) then they are quite
simply in the wrong.

Unless of course they are exercising their statutory right to enter to
inspect the property.

Francis

] said:
On 19 Jul, 14:40, Yellow wrote:


If the landlord enters a tenant's home without permission when there is
no emergency (and it is at all hard to define what is, and what is not,
a *real* emergency - and a dripping tap is not one) then they are quite
simply in the wrong.

Unless of course they are exercising their statutory right to enter to
inspect the property.

We are talking about repairs here.

In message
, at
23:00:16 on Sat, 19 Jul 2008, "
remarked:
Unless of course they are exercising their statutory right to enter to
inspect the property.

Doesn't that also require notice to be given?
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:10:11 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message
, at
23:00:16 on Sat, 19 Jul 2008, "
remarked:
Unless of course they are exercising their statutory right to enter to
inspect the property.

Doesn't that also require notice to be given?

Yes, unless the need for inspection is also an emergency (which it
could be if, for example, the landlord has received reports from
someone other than the tenant of things going on in the property which
could constitute a serious threat to it).

Mark

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

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:20:08 +0100, Bongman put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Hi All

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.

However, In our Tenancy Agreement, is states that the landlord (or his
agent) must provide 24hrs notice before coming round

The Exact wording is :

To permit the Landlord or the Landlord's Agent to enter the premises at a
reasonable time on giving at least 24 hours notice (except in an emergency)
for the purpose of:

Examining the condition of the premises;

Inspecting, maintaining, repairing, altering, improving or
rebuilding any adjoining or neighbouring property;

Maintaining, repairing or replacing the Fixtures and Fittings;

Complying with any obligations imposed on the Landlord by law.


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.

The contract doesn't force the landlord to give 24 hours notice. It
merely states that, provided he does, you can't refuse to let him in.
He is entitled to call round at any reasonable time even without
notice, and if he hasn't given notice then it's up to you whether to
let him in or not.

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.

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?