To tell my landlord to jog on

[sahknowme]

I've given notice on the flat I'm renting, and the landlord has said they're looking to sell it anyway. They now want to come round, send the EA round to do a valuation, take photos and do repairs while we're still living here.

The happened to us before in a previous rental, and the landlady really took the piss, so I'm only going to let them come round when it's convenient to us, and I'm not going to let them send the EA round, or do repairs while I'm still here. AIBU???

Are you hoping to get your security deposit back?

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that any LL would have the right to withhold a deposit because a tenant wasn't prepared to facilitate viewings?

The landlord should have paid the deposit into a scheme which will not allow it to be withheld because the tenant didn't allow viewings.

I would agree to reasonable viewings. Just because last LL wasn't reasonable isn't the fault of your current LL. Won't you want a reference off them?

Bear in mind that being bloody minded may affect any reference from the landlord.

The landlord should have paid the deposit into a scheme which will not allow it to be withheld because the tenant didn't allow viewings.

My tenants' deposits are held with the TDS. If an outgoing tenant hasn't been difficult (most aren't), I am much more likely to waive minor damage/stains to carpets/holes in walls etc rather than put a TDS claim through. Not very palatable, but there you go.

Why should it affect any reference from the landlord? The reference relates to the condition the tenant kept the property in and whether they paid rent on time. Absolutely unethical to give a bad reference because a tenant wasn't prepared to facilitate viewings. There could be any number of reasons why. They could just not want to. The law protects their right to do that yet people are suggesting that the LL should withhold the deposit, and/or provide a poor reference.

I've been a LL in this situation. Tenants gave notice they were buying somewhere, we decided to sell at the end of their tenancy. In order to be flexible with them about moving (as completion timings etc in a chain can be tricky) we all worked together - I appreciated it, they appreciated it.

So, on my behalf - one "open day" viewing arranged by estate agents so they weren't inconvenienced by viewings. They got the flat looking spotless for good pictures - in their interests that it looked good to generate lots of viewings for the open day. They allowed minor repairs, we made sure it was scheduled at their convenience not ours - they liaised with the tradesmen to facilitate this.

All worked out well and everyone moved/sold on time and with minimal hassle, and no more be needing to get too hung up on letter of the law contractual stuff - charged partial rent for the last month instead of insisting on a full month notice given on a rent date, for example.

If they'd asked me not to have photos, viewings, repairs etc then I would have understood but I'd have been a bit miffed, as I've always been fair and prompt in my dealings, and so a certain level of trust is good.

Thyme - no, of course not, but if you read my post you'll see that as another poster pointed out 'arsiness tends to beget arsiness' and landlords have discretion about whether to charge for actual damage or not.
If a tenant had been unnecessarily aggressive and awkward about something which IS actually in the tenancy agreement then I certainly wouldn't feel the need to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding any damage I found.

It may come as a surprise, but not all landlords are unreasonable, evil bastards. Some are actually normal human beings.

We are similarly getting likely viewings as the landlord has put our house on the market. Obviously this means we are desperately finding somewhere to live and packing. The idea of being available for viewings as well is a bit much so the estate agent has organised an "open house" in a couple of weeks. We only need to be viewing ready on that date initially and hopefully will have somewhere to live shortly after. Could you suggest/ tolerate that?

Tenancy says they have to give 24 hours notice for repairs and in the last 28 days they can show around to new tenants/buyers.

So you signed a tenancy agreement saying that you would allow repairs and viewings, and now you don't want to allow repairs or viewings.

As long as the LL/EA gives you the appropriate notice, of course YABU!

No Squirrels that sounds fair and reasonable.
Surely photos can be taken at least of bathroom and kitchen and garden and front of house. Hardly intrusive and compromising privacy is it?
If you refuse all viewings and photos and EA coming round the LL suffers. Surely some arrangement can be made that allows them to sell the house and you to continue to enjoy living there until the end of the tenancy

That isn't how your post came across at all and I have just read it back. You were implying that if the OP wanted her deposit back then she should facilitate these viewings or the LL may decide she deserved to not get her deposit back.

I don't believe I said anywhere that all landlords were unreasonable evil bastards.

That actually isn't right wondering. It is common to include that clause in the lease but it doesn't override the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of their home and the landlord cannot enforce it.

As above, the landlord can give a bad reference or fiddle around with deposit claims for damages etc but if the tenant isn't going into another private rent, that is not a very effective sanction.

It is in the landlord's interests to persuade the tenant that it is worthwhile for him to allow viewers and repairs by keeping the disruption to a minimum and potentially waiving or reducing rent or being flexible about departure dates.

Thyme - the comment about evil bastards wasn't directed specifically at you - more at the general 'tenor' these threads tend to take!

NoSquirrel and Essential Hummus have explained this better than I did.
Making a claim from the TDS is a pain and a landlord would prefer not to do it. If my tenants had been helpful, friendly and co-operative at the end of their tenancy I would probably just 'write off' any damage less than about £500 as 'wear and tear'.
But if they had been rude, unreasonably unhelpful, obstructive and told me to 'jog on' then I would be more likely to pursue them for the cost of any legitimate damage.

If I were the landlord, I would take one outside photo and then get the agent to do inside and viewings once the tenant has gone. Yes means a void but much easier. And also confirns that the place is vacant - no tenant is guaranteed to leave at the end of notice.

I definitely wouldn't take off work or change already scheduled plans to accommodate. What are the repairs? If it were convenient I'd agree, but only when I could be there and just explain you've had things damaged in the past. Viewings, what gets me is they expect you to have the place cleaned to show standard, but if you're moving, there will likely be boxes and stuff around. So I'd say let's compromise and arrange one day.

BTW, when I ask previous landlords for tenant references one of the questions I ask is whether tenants have replied to reasonable requests for access when justified/required (e.g. annual boiler service).
They don't have to answer that, but to date they all have and it yields useful screening information!

Perhaps I just don't understand these antagonistic landlord/tenant relationships? I get on with mine brilliantly - lots of co-operation all round - and my son goes and feeds their cat when they're on holiday.

I would allow the EA to view and take photos but that would be it. I would certainly not be allowing any repairs while I was living there. Why should you have to put up any mess, inconvenience, noise etc? I also would not agree to any viewings. Plenty of time for viewings when you have moved out

It doesn't matter what the tenancy agreement says - a tenant has the right to refuse access. Why is it "arsey" to assert a statutory right? The only "arsiness" I'm seeing here are the people saying that assertion of this right would lead them to withhold deposit money or give a bad reference ie that they would unfairly penalise a person just for the sake of not being able to ride roughshod over a tenant's perfectly legal and legitimate refusal to comply with demands that they do not have to.

It's pretty clear who the arsehole/aggressive party is in this situation and it's not the OP.

Our landlord is selling and there is quite a bit of our contract left (situation is a bit complicated). We put out all the stops to get it ready for pictures and at least the landlord was impressed .

Not had any viewings yet - we have asked for at least 24 hours notice and warned the landlord that the house won't look like it did for the pictures. We're happy to be flexible and hopefully it will benefit us too.

There weren't also various repairs etc before the photos but most of that was outdoors and so didn't inconvenience us much.

Maybe a bit U.

I would absolutely not be difficult for the sake of it as that is just being an arse (and I am a tenant) Different if you have illness or similar and have more to juggle, but the LL and agent might be perfectly reasonable. You will have an inkling of that by now as you know them.

First you need to know whether you need a landlords reference or not. If you don't, you have more discretion as to what to allow/ negoitiate.

I agree that suggesting open day/ a day/ time of the week that might suit for viewings. Or a block of days, and get this agreed in principle before you consent to anything.

Photo-wise, you could say photos of kitchen, bathroom, garden only perhaps, so wouldn't be as intrusive. Most agent do floorplans nowadays so it would still give buyers somethign to go on.

Allowing some repairs is one thing, but upgrades are something different, and you need to know how much disruption they would cause.

Equally it will probably be easier (and maybe therefore cheaper) for the trades involved to work in an empty house so shoe horning 'repairs' in now, might not be the best idea anyway.

Give and take is required and hope you don't have a bad experience with LL and agent again. I know how this is as we had previous LLs insist on viewing when DH had just come out of hospital AND they had given us shock news that they were selling up. We coudln't say no as we 100% needed the reference :(

Lovely to hear so many nice LLs on this thread :) :) :) We have a lovely LL now, but have had many real shockers!!!

people saying that assertion of this right would lead them to withhold deposit money or give a bad reference ie that they would unfairly penalise a person

No, I'd seek to withhold deposit money that I could reasonably claim under the TDS rules, and give an honest reference if asked how the tenants have responded to requests for access etc - neither is unfairly penalising the tenant, and the former involves adjudication by a third party, so I can't claim a squillion pounds for a chipped cupboard door.

When another landlord asks for a reference it's usually by phone IME, and it's usually a) how have they been on rent payment followed by b) what have they been like to deal with? Because most of us would like to (for example) get the gas engineer in there for a safety check once a year without having to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles with a tenant.

FWIW "quiet enjoyment" - which is the "LTB" of these kinds of threads - isn't an absolute right. There's rather a lot of case law to that effect.

What OP said in the first post is not "array" in particular- allowing access at their convenience - but the title says AIBU to tell the LL to "jog on" which yes, is somewhat arsey.

What LL posters are saying is that often a bit if give and take leads to happier outcomes all round. By the letter of the law, a LL could charge for damage out of the deposit if it was warranted. But they wouldn't bother if they'd saved themselves money in lost voids, extra sale revenue etc if the tenant had been amenable to some slight inconvenience. Quid pro quo.

So, to OP: YABabitU because you're assuming this LL is like your old one and will take the piss. YANBlegallyU to refuse whatever until after you're gone, but there's probably a middle way where everyone is happy. Happy people is always good.

You said yourself that your stance is not very palatable. I agree.