My landlord is demanding access to the property

[Gleadly 11]

I've seen both sides.

 

I've had bad tenants and bad LL's

 

I had a house down South I was renting out whilst I was working abroad.

 

The tenant, unbeknown to me, moved out without notifying me, and sublet the property, at a lower rent, to some youngsters who were working for a franchise of a well-known FF chain.

 

I eventually got them to leave, after I was threatened by the local council for over-occupancy (unbeknown to me).

 

Needless to say, the place was a wreck. Fortunately, I managed to sell it in the condition it was for a sensible price.

 

The agency who was managing the property for me was a joke.

The orginal agency, who were both very good and local, sold out to another agency who were 10 miles away! Needless to say, this agency was not interested in the property.

I had no joy with the management of the FF store.

 

A LL in Germany refused to return my deposit, although the property was left in A1 condition. By this time I was back in the UK and would have been far too expensive to pursue the matter.

 

I'm sure there are considerably more good LLs and Ts than bad ones.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Gleadly

[TJC1 10]

I've seen both sides.

 

I've had bad tenants and bad LL's

 

I had a house down South I was renting out whilst I was working abroad.

 

The tenant, unbeknown to me, moved out without notifying me, and sublet the property, at a lower rent, to some youngsters who were working for a franchise of a well-known FF chain.

 

I eventually got them to leave, after I was threatened by the local council for over-occupancy (unbeknown to me).

 

Needless to say, the place was a wreck. Fortunately, I managed to sell it in the condition it was for a sensible price.

 

The agency who was managing the property for me was a joke.

The orginal agency, who were both very good and local, sold out to another agency who were 10 miles away! Needless to say, this agency was not interested in the property.

I had no joy with the management of the FF store.

 

A LL in Germany refused to return my deposit, although the property was left in A1 condition. By this time I was back in the UK and would have been far too expensive to pursue the matter.

 

I'm sure there are considerably more good LLs and Ts than bad ones.

 

 

I've just experienced, seen, too many cases to think it's isolated to one or two bad LL's.

 

My issue is LL's are not vetted. While as a tennant you get credit checked, pay massive admin fees and quite often 6 weeks deposit up to 6 months upfront rent in today's competitive rental market.

[Gleadly 11]

I'd strongly recommend that both Ts and LLs should deal with a respectable and well-established agency who will manage the property.

 

However, that opens another can of worms.

 

LLs, if they are local, understandably, don't want the hassle of paying management fees.

 

If a T goes through an agency, then they should be willing to sort out any issues for you, such as LL's access to property, repairs etc.

 

A LL can always ask you to quit, but the T can just run off with whatever and leave the property in a mess.

 

It's the LL who has to pick up the tab for any damage to property.

I think the T is better off than the LL in most cases.

 

As I say, there's good and bad on all sides.

Unfortunately, it's only the bad ones we remember.

[JennyO 10]

Try www. housinglaw .org.uk

[TJC1 10]

I'd strongly recommend that both Ts and LLs should deal with a respectable and well-established agency who will manage the property.

 

However, that opens another can of worms.

 

LLs, if they are local, understandably, don't want the hassle of paying management fees.

 

If a T goes through an agency, then they should be willing to sort out any issues for you, such as LL's access to property, repairs etc.

 

A LL can always ask you to quit, but the T can just run off with whatever and leave the property in a mess.

 

It's the LL who has to pick up the tab for any damage to property.

I think the T is better off than the LL in most cases.

 

As I say, there's good and bad on all sides.

Unfortunately, it's only the bad ones we remember.

 

True. Known some good LL's too that go above and beyond what is required which is great.

 

Infact most LL's are good when they get money from you! it's later on when money goes the other way, issues arise.

 

A good landlord is basically someone who you never hear from but when something goes wrong (which falls under there remit as per contract) they sort it out efficiently. They don't bully, harrass or generally inconvience tennants (like the OP has suffered).

 

A good (legal) tennant is someone who pays the deposit, pays rent on time and keeps the place in a reasonable condition (as per contract). That's all.

 

Sounds pretty simple, so why does it all go wrong?

[Cyclone 10]

It's not necessarily unenforceable. The parties are free to enter into whatever contract they wish.

BUT such a clause can be challenged, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, unless individually negotiated.

 

I know you've explained before, but remind me, what makes a contract "individually negotiated" and what's the alternative.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 16:33 ----------

 

I've just experienced, seen, too many cases to think it's isolated to one or two bad LL's.

 

My issue is LL's are not vetted. While as a tennant you get credit checked, pay massive admin fees and quite often 6 weeks deposit up to 6 months upfront rent in today's competitive rental market.

 

A tenant is free to vet a landlord however they wish. Nothing stopping you.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 16:35 ----------

 

True. Known some good LL's too that go above and beyond what is required which is great.

 

Infact most LL's are good when they get money from you! it's later on when money goes the other way, issues arise.

 

A good landlord is basically someone who you never hear from but when something goes wrong (which falls under there remit as per contract) they sort it out efficiently. They don't bully, harrass or generally inconvience tennants (like the OP has suffered).

 

A good (legal) tennant is someone who pays the deposit, pays rent on time and keeps the place in a reasonable condition (as per contract). That's all.

 

Sounds pretty simple, so why does it all go wrong?

 

How is the OP being harassed? The LL wants access to the property, as set out in the contract that the tenant signed. The tenant is being awkward about it.

[TJC1 10]

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 16:33 ----------

 

[/color]

 

A tenant is free to vet a landlord however they wish. Nothing stopping you.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 16:35 ----------

 

 

How is the OP being harassed? The LL wants access to the property, as set out in the contract that the tenant signed. The tenant is being awkward about it.

 

Practically and financially speaking It's not the tennants responsiblity to 'vet' a landlord. It's the letting agents responsiblity or an independent party should do it if Landlord is not attached. It doesn't happen anyway, there is no such system in place thus we have a load of really bad unregulated landlords doing whatever they like untill they get slapped down by someone who uses the law better then they can flout it.

 

The OP has already said they offered times. The landlord has said he will let himself in regardless because times don't suit. That's tough because the LL cannot just please themselves. The tennant has rights. Hence harrassment.

[Cyclone 10]

It's no ones responsibility, but if as a tenant you want it doing, then I suggest you take the responsibility and do it yourself.

 

The tenant has rights, and they have responsibilities under the contract they signed where they agreed that the landlord can have access after giving 24 hours notice. It presumably doesn't say "if it's convenient for the tenant". Not harassment, just acting within the bounds of the contract that both parties have agreed to.

[Gleadly 11]

As long as the LL has given notice of access and provided such notice is given within the terms of the tenancy agreement, then the LL can access that property without further due.

 

The tenant cannot refuse LL entry to his (the LL's) property.

 

There is no harassment as both parties had agreed to access.

 

I cannot see anything unfair about this at all.

The T is being unreasonable in refusing LL access as was previously agreed in the tenancy contract.

 

The T is doing more harm than good by refusing LL access.

[FORE 12]

Is this seriously STILL ongoing?

 

I haven't seen a post from 'Sightholder' since day one i.e. 15th March.

 

For all we know they could be at the pub together now!

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

I know you've explained before, but remind me, what makes a contract "individually negotiated" and what's the alternative.

If the parties negotiate/settle the contract clauses themselves (inc. via their solicitors), so that each party is happy with the resultant contract's contents/wording, that's "individually negotiated".

 

If one of them (e.g. L) says to the other (e.g. T) that the Letting Agreement is on a 'take it or leave it' basis, that's not "individually negotiated".

 

Yes, obviously there's a whole spectrum of possibilities between those two!

[gnvqsos 10]

If the parties negotiate/settle the contract clauses themselves (inc. via their solicitors), so that each party is happy with the resultant contract's contents/wording, that's "individually negotiated".

 

If one of them (e.g. L) says to the other (e.g. T) that the Letting Agreement is on a 'take it or leave it' basis, that's not "individually negotiated".

 

Yes, obviously there's a whole spectrum of possibilities between those two!

 

What happens if a prepared tenancy agreement is supplied by the L,and after reading it,the T signs and accepts it.Is that individually negotiated or is an amendment needed to indicate some element of individualisation?