Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Unflip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Unflip

1 2 3 4

AIBU?

To have to let them in?

86 replies

knittedbreast · 21/10/2011 17:15

I move house soon, its a rented property and they want to come round and take photos of the house to market it.

They already have pics of the house, i reminded them. They have "updated their systems" and the old pics wont fit due to pixel resolution.

I said, its my home and im not comfortable having you take pics with my things in , they said we can enter your house anyway we only have to give 24hrs notice.

I dont want them taking pics of my things.

Basically do I actually have to let them in?

Thanks

OP posts:

Report

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 21:54

No, I'm basing that on personal experience, with both private landlords and ARLA registered letting agents, frequent incorrect 'advice' provided by people who are landlords on internet forums (not exclusively mumsnet!), experience of friends in rented accommodation, work in housing for a local authority etc.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 21:50

Eh? Are you saying the majority of LLs are acting illegally based on this one comment?

But yes, the statement in isolation is dubious. However it depends on the contract which the OP signed.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 21:47

Thousands of landlords across the country don't know the law, and as we see in the OP rely on saying things such as

"we can enter your house anyway we only have to give 24hrs notice"

Whether or not you think that the tenant has the right to refuse access indefinitely you can surely see that the above statement is incorrect as entry can only be obtained with the tenant's permission, anything else is illegal.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 21:44

Disagree completely. Think reasonable access does relate to marketing. Or thousands of LLs across the country would have a problem. And if arrangement for viewings written into contract LL would not have to show anything - tenant broke contract so burden of proof would be on them.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 21:39

The tenant only has to grant reasonable access. Access that is generally considered reasonable relates to repair and periodic inspections. It does not relate to taking photos, conducting viewings etc. When you sign a tenancy agreement you get exclusive use of the property. Exclusive use means only gaining access with the express permission of the occupants, the same as any homeowner.

If an arrangement for viewings is written into the contract then in theory refusing viewings is breach of contract. But the landlord would have to show that they suffered a loss because of this. Very difficult to prove as it is hard to show that a void period would have been avoided if viewings had been allowed. Ten people could have viewed but doesn't mean any of them would have rented the property.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 21:37

www.themovechannel.com/guides/Letting/Being_a_landlord/Landlord_and_tenant_rights

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 21:29

What that the tenant can give a blanket refusal? Don't think so.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 21:25

I am not giving incorrect advice.

A 2 minute google would confirm this ten times over.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 21:25

Sorry should have read "i.e." not "is". Stupid iPhone.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 21:24

Better to disagree than give incorrect advice. My view remains that in terms of marketing there is nothing statutory so you have to rely on the contract. One visit to take photos is not disturbing your right to quiet enjoyment of the property. Even in terms of repairs you can refuse but only with a valid reason is not just a blanket refusal because you don't like the idea of your LL entering your property.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 21:17

Maybe, but that doesn't help the OP does it

So Knittedbreast, you're perfectly within your rights to refuse access. The landlord/agent cannot enter without your consent. Clearly others see differently

If you still doubt this maybe this thread at Landlordzone forums will reassure you.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 21:13

I'm pretty sure it would still be construed as unreasonable access if repeated refusal is given, particularly taking into account the contract. Let's agree to disagree.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 21:07

Giving your landlord access when necessary - Shelter

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 21:06

The right to quiet enjoyment includes the right to refuse access. If notice is given and denied the landlord/agent has no right to enter the property. The landlord cannot insist on access. If a landlord/agent gives written notice and the tenant refuses and the landlord enters without consent that is illegal. Yet knittedbreast's letting agent say this is what they will do!

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 20:59

Yes but there is nothing statutory re taking photos/marketing, so it would likely be implied. It is not unreasonable access, given there would likely be a term in the tenancy agreement too.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 20:58

"they said we can enter your house anyway we only have to give 24hrs notice"

It is this part of their request that isn't reasonable. Stating that they will do something that is actually illegal if you don't comply.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 20:55

That link is talking about repairs and inspections. In the OPs case they want to come in to take photos, this is neither repair or inspection.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 20:54

DeWe, LLs will lose a month of rental income in the meantime ...

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 20:53

Tyler, no idea, LL may well do if can't gain access for what I see is a perfectly reasonable request.

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 20:52

Okay, you don't have to agree but could be liable for court costs if you are unreasonable about refusal.

www.privaterentedservice.co.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=142

DeWe · 22/10/2011 20:50

If tenants start saying that LL have to leave a month between tenacies so they can do photos/viewings etc. when it's empty, then LLs will use that to up the rent, and renters will end up paying more, surely.

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 20:48

Why would they be in court?

The landlord gives 24 hours written notice, the tenant refuses entry/permission. You think the landlord would go to court to gain entry?

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

WelliesinJune · 22/10/2011 20:46

Tyler, thinking about it, you may be right. I don't think quiet enjoyment is a statutory right as such - although I'm thinking it would be an implied term.

However, there is more than likely something in the tenancy agreement about marketing/other access to the property with 24 hours notice. And I think the tenant would have a difficult job proving in court that this was a breach of their right to quiet enjoyment.

hairylights · 22/10/2011 20:45

Tyler is right

tyler80 · 22/10/2011 20:38

Landlord's property, tenants home.

Unflip

1 2 3 4

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.