Is the letting agent being an absolute twat here?

[HarrietKettleWasHere]

Any advice appreciated. Not the most exciting AIBU but I'm really pissed off.

Gave notice on our flat. Have six weeks left in tenancy. Landlady lives abroad so we deal with letting agent who has been up until now ok (apart from the time he told us off about the washing up when he he came round to look at the bathroom and when he entered the flat randomly to measure up something saying he thought we'd gone on holiday)

Now, understandably they don't want a gap in the tennants but they put the poky flat with awful plumbing and no storage space on at £1100 (London zone 3) so there's been quite a slow take on it. They made the photos look good though so people want to veiw it. That's ok, we've tried to be flexible BUT the letting agent was texting and saying 'can I block book 6-8pm on Wednesday night' or 'can I do a viewing this lunchtime?' I mean, we live here. All our stuff is here. We are still paying rent here. No consideration to any of that but as we were going to be out of the flat for three week nights last week I offered those. Letting agent could only do one. No takers.

Asked to book a viewing at 9am on this Saturday morning. I said no, (we are out at a party tonight and I don't fancy getting up early to tidy and vacate on a weekend) BUT you can do it when we go out for lunch at 12. Can't do that so now apparently we have 'jeapordised the chances of re letting a flat for refusing to let them in on Saturday)

Anyway, after reading up on a few tennants rights etc, I found the 'right to quiet enjoyment law' which actually means we could refuse viewings altogether if we so chose. I also know that he has to give us 24 hours notice of he wishes to access and we have to give permission unless it's an emergency. So I emailed him quite a balanced and fair email this morning, saying that viewing times need to be worked around us and not the other way around, and offered him a couple of days next week.

He's sent one back and I'm livid but DP is saying take a step back for now before we respond.

Just going to work out how to blur names then will screenshot the emails.

How to respond? I think he's wrong. He states that he has every right to access the property. I am sure that's not correct but DP is worried we've rocked the boat now.

Op, you've got a lot of people egging you on here. I'd however urge you to step back and think about this. Those people won't be there when you lose your deposit, need a reference for something else, or if they take uou to small claims court and sue you for lost rent because uou didn't give access.

Where as a contract cannot break the law, there can be additional clauses over and above ( right of access) that are legally binding if you proactively and willingly agreed to them. Which you did. You legally agree to the terms of that contract without duress. Both parties should then comply with the terms they agreed to. If you think the contract is legally unfair, you go to court, that's the law, simply breaking the contract lays the fault at your door.

I think at this stage I'd urge you to look at rhe ramifications of what uou are doing here for your own protection. If you still think it's fine and you understand the risks, continue, but I would step back and I would think about it and I'd discuss it with my husband as he is going to be impacted to so has a right to a say in the action you're currently taking.

Yeah. I was responding to someone else but in this case anything is totally possible. (Though op said her carpets were new) It's also possible for any LA to fake invoices I guess which is why the inventory is so important.

I refused all viewings after our agent didn't respect our privacy when selling the house that we were renting.
I also took them to the local county court to get my deposit back and losses to me.

Do not let them do this, too many roll over and so it continues.

bluntness the op cannot lose her deposit for refusing visits without sufficient notice and she certainly cannot be taken to court for lost rent! Are you dreaming? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? There is actual case law and legal precedent here and no tenant has ever been held liable for lost potential future rent! That's what landlord insurance is for, and it's also an accepted cost of the business of letting property. Fgs.
The op has not refused to allow access (though she could) she has refused to allow access at inconvenient times and without proper notice in response to a bullying letting agent who has illegally entered her property on one known occasion. Believe me, if the landlord tried to take her to court she would lose.

There is no way that you can be sued for lost rent if you don't allow viewings either.

My letting agent was silly enough to falsify a cleaning invoice, he made up an email adress which I emailed, found didn't exist and registered it to me.
I also went round to the adress supplied on the invoice and it was another house being rented through them.
I positively enjoyed producing all that to the judge.

He still runs a very successful letting company though as he bullies tenants and they are too scared to challenge him.

Ffs, op cannot lose deposit legally for refusing viewings and nor can she be sued for lost rent from a void. Which BTW is not covered by landlord insurance, that is for a tenant in place that doesn't pay.

Put down the guardian and get real about English rental laws. I know it isn't perfect but rachmann has been dead decades.

What's the guardian got to do with anything, special?

@ASauvingnonADay Our LL has put a clause in our contract about having the whole house and carpets cleaned. So we don't have to do it as long as the house is in same condition as when we moved in as per inventory?

Correct, although reasonable wear and tear is expected and allowed. How the house reaches that same state is up to you- you can do it yourself or pay someone else, but they CANNOT say you must have it professionally cleaned. Pretty much all agencies try it on (often 'recommending' a particular cleaner) but they're talking out of their arses. It's shocking but a lot genuinely don't know the law of the field they work in (and a lot do know it, but choose to act otherwise).

@AdalindSchade If the carpets were professionally cleaned when you moved in then they can compel you to have them cleaned at check out (do ask for evidence of professional cleaning though, they should keep copies of invoices) but if they were just thoroughly cleaned then you must leave them thoroughly cleaned, however you achieve that

This isn't quite right- it doesn't matter if they were 'professionally' cleaned or cleaned by the tenant, it is the level of cleanliness (within reason). They cannot do swab tests to check that, so if the carpets appear as clean (with reasonable wear and tear based on the duration of the tenancy) then the tenant is fine. Realistically that means that a decent hoover is sufficient for a lot of tenants (no kids or pets, kept it clean etc), but some may need to buy or hire a carpet cleaner if there's spaghetti bolognese everywhere.

Stipulating the the tenant must pay a professionally to clean anything (including carpets) is an unfair clause and therefore unenforceable.

www.thetenantsvoice.co.uk/advice_from_us/end-of-tenancy-cleaning/

What is a 'professional' cleaner anyway? It's not like you can become a charted cleaner. There's no special cleaners society with rules about conduct. Surely you could just pay anyone to do it like your dad if all they mean is a paid for cleaner?

bluntness the op cannot lose her deposit for refusing visits without sufficient notice and she certainly cannot be taken to court for lost rent! Are you dreaming

Are you attacking me for a reason? Seriously, calm yourself down there. You may be over invested in getting her to fight her landlord.

As I said, both parties need to comply with the contract terms so the agent needs to give the required notice and she needs to permit entry as per the terms of the contract.

As for going to court, I will bow to your wisdom and enhanced legal knowledge here thst no one has ever been taken to small claims court for lost rent, I've no idea how you know this, but technically, if she bars entry a case could be made she broke the terms of her contract and as such prevented them renting it out again in a timely manner, and as such they lost x amount of rent.

A small claims application is cheap, eighty pounds or something and the agent or landlord doesn't need a lawyer. They could easily show that they had numerous interested parties, and with the required notice, she still barred entry, contrary to the terms she agreed, and as such they failed to rent it out on the required time frame based on her actions and she should be liable for the lost rent.

If they do not give the required notice then she has nothing to worry about. It's the cases where they do.

What a load of old cobblers, Bluntness.

As I said, both parties need to comply with the contract terms so the agent needs to give the required notice and she needs to permit entry as per the terms of the contract

Completely and utterly wrong.

bluntness I'm annoyed with you because you are peddling nonsense.

It's not nonsense and she needs to be sure of what she's doing. You can all act all aggressive here, but if she does get screwed I'm fairly sure none of uou are going to help her financially. It will be all " oh that's fucking awful, poor you, can't believe he's done that, what a cunt, can't believe the court made uou pay them a months rent and let them keep your deposit, bye now" .

She needs to be sure of what she is doing because she could have a costly repurcussion. I'm not saying she definetly will, I'm saying she needs to think it through and strangers on the internet shouting " you go girl, what a knob" isn't going to change what happens in the end. Recommending she looks carefully is important and valid advice.

Deposit schemes don't work like that.
Tenants are not liable for void periods.
(English law).

Produce evidence showing the law is otherwise and you may get believed. And that is evidence from gov.UK or similar.

Bluntness - just stop! If you don't know what you're talking about, butt out! Seriously, your 'advice' is what will get OP in trouble .

OP ignore bluntness, she's talking utter crap.

The trouble is, if the OP is taken to court for unreasonably refusing to allow viewings with the required 24hrs notice, it is quite likely that the judge will be sympathetic towards the LL and EA.

Whilst the law states that you cannot enter a property without the tenant's permission, it also states:

The tenants are entitled to refuse anyone access to their home, but should not withhold their consent unreasonably

You can and should include a term in your tenancy agreement explaining when and how you can enter the property. This sort of term will generally say that landlords or an agent entering on the landlord's behalf can enter the property to inspect the property or carry out affairs as long as a minimum of 24 hours' notice is given to the tenant.

Bluntness is right to point this out.

How was AdalindSchade attacking anyone?
The op has a right to a peaceful life until she leaves.
She has every right to refuse viewings, no matter what her contract says, the law says different.

The point is that the letting agent has breached their side of the covenant by entering the property without consent and by demanding access without 24 hours notice or reasonable discussion. So the tenant would claim that they have been harassed by the letting agent and has written evidence of this so the judge would absolutely not be sympathetic to the letting agent.
In fact - this is all moot since the tenants are moving out before any application could get to court.

Happytobefree17 it's not to carry out repairs or inspections though is it?
Plus she's let them have viewings and even told tem when she's going to be out but it's not good enough for them.

Bluntness It would be impossible to claim loss of rent because a tenant didn't allow the agent to bring people in for viewings. Just because people view a property doesn't mean they are going to rent it.

Having a property empty between tenants is part and parcel of being a LL and is most certainly not covered by insurance.

I haven't not allowed viewings as kali and others have pointed out. The ones I offered were apparently not ideal for the LA. I have refused to permit people trooping in on the weekend at times when I don't want them to (i.e. At 9am on a Saturday morning when I know I'm going to be tired/hungover both from the night before)

As long as you continue to be reasonable with viewings, which it sounds as though you have been, you have the law on your side OP.