AIBU to be really angry that my landlord's agent came into my flat without warning, while my son was in bed asleep?

[Solopower]

Well, he did send an email, two days ago, but I didn't see it, as there was something wrong with the server.

According to my son (aged 17) he knocked on the door and called out, but when he got no reply, he just let himself in. Clearly he had come prepared with the keys.

My son, half asleep and thinking that I was in the flat and dealing with it, didn't get up (it was 9.30 am and he was on holiday) until a woman half pushed open his door. When she saw there was someone in the room, she didn't open it fully. She must have told the factor, who then called to my son to get up and get dressed so that they could come into the room. Which my son did, very quickly, and only just before the door opened fully to admit 3 strangers. No one apologised to him.

The agent was there because they were surveying the cracks in the walls, btw.

I am livid!

But aibu?? And what should I do?

I don't see how the quotation about being unable to provide access unless telephone or email contact has been made is a threat?

It's just a politer way of saying what the law already says, as far as I can see. Very reasonable and courteous.

I don't think london was intimidating anyone. SHe just stated what she would do if a tenent refused to let her in, inorder to carry out work the LL is legally supposed to do. If a LL doesn't do saftey checks and there was an accident, the LL would be in very serious trouble.

Of course she is. "If you don't let me in whenever I want I will kick you out".

What else would you call it but intimidating?

LRD - It's not about intimidating tenants, it's about maintaining a good relationship. If a tenant cannot be available for an appointment, that's fine, its in everybody's interest to try and be as flexible as possible. If a tenant repeatedly is unwilling to be available or puts ridiculous restrictions on times when the property can be accessed, for essential maintenance, then I would not hesitate to give them notice.

It's really not worth it to be difficult about allowing reasonable access. You just wreck the relationship with the LL who will end up not renewing your tenancy or giving you notice.

I would find it intimidating myself, but of course she is perfectly well within her rights and the law.

What I'm trying to understand is just how far that attitude goes - whether she'd feel like that with a tenant who repeatedly refused (which I would be 100% behind, unless there were mitigating factors), or whether she'd feel like that about what I'd see as par-for-the-course refusals, when the tenant is simply busy that day or needs to use their home for something like tutoring or childminding and doesn't want the disruption.

LRD - Well I would consider it an implied threat if I was to receive something like that wording.

Penisvanlesbian - Extrapolation much. That is not at all what I said!

Ah, cross posted, sems we are seeing the same thing, and yes, I'd agree.

cod - but it's hardly being 'difficult' to rearrange a time, or to expect the LA/LL to give proper notice and wait for a response, which they didn't for the OP.

I'd say being difficult would be refusing more than once in a row, or not offering an alternative time, or insisting inspections could only be made between 9 and 9.15 on Sunday, or something like that.

No that is incorrect penis She is saying "If you don't work with me and agreee to let me into the property within the next few weeks/month, I will serve notice"

london - but what's she threatening?

She's pointing out she can't give permission to let them in if she doesn't get the communication.

I am a tenant and have been reading this with interest. My landlord only comes round once a year and I have no problem with this as he gives me plenty of notice and any inspections are agreed by both parties and only when I am in. I think a bit of mutual respect on both sides can only help matters.

On the point of who owns property, ie the landlord or the mortgage company. I work at a solicitors and most lenders these days don't store title deeds anymore. They used to, and still do hold the deeds when a property was/is not registered at HM Land Registry but since most property is now registered it's a moot point. Deeds are most often sent to clients after completion to keep at home. The lender has their interest noted on the title deeds on the charges register and that secures their interest. The registered proprietor is the 'owner' and the lender has a charge over the property.

I consider my duty to leave the tenants alone UNLESS there is some sort of maintenance to be done. If there is then I consider it their duty to be as flexible as possible to allow the maintenance to take place in a timely fashion and therefore minimise any damage to the fabric of the property. When I was a tenant I certainly didn't think that I should never be disrupted and that the ll would have to work around me.

Yeah, I think when something needs doing it's good to be as flexible as possible - and also with safety checks.

I think the OP was referring to an inspection, which I suppose I feel is more of a grey area, in that if you know the place seemed fine six months ago, it might not hurt to wait a week until she replied to the email, or to phone and arrange a time.

I have rearranged maintenance work recently, putting it back by about three weeks, but it was because it wasn't urgent, and I was really needing to work and not be disrupted. But my LL was fine with this and if it had been more time-critical I'd have let them get on with it and got DH to take a few days off work.

I think the OP said they were com in in to survey cracks!

If maintenance is required to the house that I live in then I would prefer that this is done when I am not there (during working hours in the daytime). This means that I am not disturbed at the weekend and I don't get in the way of whoever is doing the work. This would be the same even if I owned the house that I lived in and this is what I used to do when I did own my house.

If the visit is just for an 'inspection' then I would prefer to be there when it is carried out. This is just my personal preference but an inspection is a two way street. The landlord can check you are not growing cannabis in the house or trashing the place and you can bring matters to their attention which require repair or maintenance.

Ah, I forgot that london, you're right.

But still, they should have got permission.

Becky is right, the landlord owns the property and the mortgagee has the right to seize ownership of the property if, and only if, certain specified events take place e.g. a payment default. The main exception to this are some forms of Islamic mortgage where the bank does own the property and the landlord buys a share of the ownership each month (like the repayment element) and pays rent on the portion they don't own (instead of interest).

We are landlords and usually only visit when the tenants give us a ring to check something. Even if we have arranged a date and time we usually ring again just before we get there to check its still OK. Our tenants are a family with 3 kids and plans sometimes do change when you have children! I would rather they didn't change the locks because if there was a problem with the property whilst they were on holiday (for example) we would want to be able to gain access. But if you respect the tenants right to be in the property and outside of emergencies, wait for their consent then they probably won't feel the need to change the locks.

I think the problem in this case might have been one of deemed consent versus express consent . I wouldn't be surprised if the email to the OP had said something like "we will be coming around at 9.30am on Thurs 9th Aug unless you let us know that this is not convenient" i.e. you are deemed to have consented unless you actively object. In my view this is wrong and the landlord could only rely on express consent i.e. a direct agreement from the OP that they could come round at that time.

I am currently refusing entry to my Landlord and I am completely in my rights to do so, The letting agent has told me I can refuse and I am doing so.

I moved in in December after selling my house, it was 2 weeks before christmas and had no choice but to rent. When I signed the tenancy agreement it was agreed that a) the house would be took off the market (it had been stood empty for over 2 years) and b) we would need to be here for a minimum of 2 years for my ds 15 to finish his schooling.

After 7 months of being here (allowing access to agent to do checks etc) I was called by the agent to see if the Landlady could bring someone round to view the house to buy, They had viewed the house the previous year but were not in the position to buy at the time, They are now in a position to buy so wanted to view again.

I refused this as it was agreed that when we signed agreement that the house would be took off the market.

3 weeks later I was given notice to leave (I have till December) The Landlady has sold the house to the other people without them having their second viewing.

The agents have been calling me every week now to ask if I will allow the landlady and new owners to have a look round and every time I have said no.

Along with my notice through the post was a letter saying that the new owners would need access to the property from the beginning of september for them to measure up and stuff. I have checked through my Tenancy agreement with a fine tooth comb and nothing in there states I have to do this, The tenancy agreement is between myself and the original Landlady not the new buyers so I will not be allowing access to any of them untill I have left.

The agent/landlady/new buyers do not know this yet but they will not be stepping a foot through my door, They have said that they have keys if no one is available when access is needed but I work from home so I am always here.
I have already been given notice and have paid up front untill december so I have standing my ground now untill we leave.

*october not september

Can you make a legal agreement that they won't sell the house and you'll be there for two years?

Or do you just mean you're fed up they broke a normal, non-legal agreement?

I don't know if this has been said (I am on the pages about locks being changed) but my LL's agent works on assumed consent, there is usually something on the letter about contacting them to change days for access, But they always contact me by letter when someone is coming round.

Angel - how long is your tenancy agreement for? Is it an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement? You do not have to go anywhere until your original tenancy agreement has expired if you are on an AST.

And I would also find out if the property has been sold with vacant possession on completion or subject to a tenancy agreement. Inspections are one thing but allowing people to traipse through your home to measure up for curtains is another. I assume the LL is happy for you to keep paying the rent during these constant disruptions to your quiet enjoyment of the property.