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.

kali to carry out affairs in the property extends to viewings.

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.

This. So far you're fine, but i would consider carefully before going to an extreme of saying no more viewings. I'd at least phone the cab for legal advice first off as I am fairly sure the contract will apply.

bluntness I do wonder what makes you think you know more than everyone else on the thread when you don't appear to be either a professional landlord, a letting agent or a lawyer? From the sounds of your posts you don't sound like a long term renter either so what are you basing your posts on? Just what you think is probably the case?!

Happytobefree17 where is that quote from please? Can you link to the full piece.

I find some of the 'advice' posted on these threads so frustrating and worrying.
CAB is actually very poor for advice on tenancy law.

Without exception, the best place to go for advice is shelter.

They have a helpline, phone them for advice and they will confirm everything bluntness has said is a complete pile of twaddle.

You don't have to let a soul in. Ever. In emergency, fire/water/gas etc, the relevant people could break in if they had to.

There is NO need for OP to allow veiwings. I've been in her situation and it's completely HER choice.

The right to quiet enjoyment trumps the right for the landlord or agent to enter.

the ONLY time they may enter without permission is with reasonable belief that the property is at risk for example a flood, fire or gas leak.

OP, do be aware that bluntness is making all this up. The law overrides what your contract says. I don't know why she's bullshitting, but she is.

It is possibly true that they might now be more inclined to try and play hardball on the deposit, to be twats. Although that assumes they'd have let you off with any damage previously. But that doesn't mean they'll win. It isn't the landlords decision, not the agents.

Thanks. I'm assuming that we put all the deposit discrepancies to the independent company holding the deposit. I think they'll have a hard time proving anything beyond accectable wear and tear. It's a big deposit (over £2000) so of course we do need it back but luckily we can afford to wait as we don't need it to move in with family member.

Yes, you do indeed. The burden of proof is on the landlord, if they want to make any deductions.

When my DD left her Uni halls in July, the company inspected the place and sent us an estimate on the repairs needed. Then the deposit company asked if I agreed and then they would deduct that cost from our deposit. They said if I didn't agree they'd go back to the landlord for further details. All very civilised and I had the deposit back in my bank account the next day. I think as Senator said, the burden of proof is on the landlord.
I know when my DIL left her place, because the letting agent was such an arse, she took photos of every room and of every repair still outstanding the day she left and her deposit was returned too.

I privately rented a long time ago - before the deposit schemes etc.

Our landlord decided to sell the house and the LA brought over a potential buyer the day after I'd given birth and was in bed with my newborn baby!

Needless to say the house was chaos esp with a 2yo toddler also in the mix.

Thankfully they didn't stay long and the buyers looked mortified to be intruding. We had to move out two weeks after the baby was born as that's when the tenancy ended from notice. Wasn't our choice as we'd been given a months notice so they could sell - at the most inconvenient time imaginable for us. Think the actual date was a day before my due day (dd was a bit early).

With hindsight, age and more knowledge we could prob of fought the date a bit but we were young and renting before Google and the internet had kicked off. (Dd has just turned 17).

Its 15 mins of someine coming to look around as a landlord myself its not an easy buisness and i wish i never took it on. If its vacant then your liable for council tax. My tenents just moved out i wasnt charging going rate as they couldnt afford it and kept the place occuiped. They have caused so much damage its unrentable i cant sell either as i would lose money. I think your right to be annoyed but i also think maybe 1 hour a week would be ok to show people around

The burden of proof is the landlord. The deposit is the tenant's money.
Since 2007.

coldkebab sorry about the kicking from skanks ( been there, why do people destroy property?) But that doesn't change the law. Yes, landlord pays taxes and bills when the property is vacant. Also watch that one as you can be liable if the tenant vanishes - the council go after the easy option, the landlord.

I tooa shocked at the absolute nonsense bluntness is posting.

I too am

OP has never said 1 hour a week wasn't ok to show people around. It was the agent seeking to dictate that viewings should happen early on a Saturday morning.

And equally, anyone who can't manage without that one hour a week while the tenant is in situ shouldn't be a landlord. I agree with coldkebab it's not an easy business. It gets sold to people as easy money, but it's not at all.

coldkebab no disrespect meant but nobody is forcing you to be a landlord. You could always sell!

special I know you take a lot of flak on here but you are a prime example of a good professional landlord. I hope more mumsnet landlords listen to you.

I know this will not go down well but I just wanted to defend bluntness. Theoretically, it is possible there may be a risk that if you were in breach of contract by refusing all viewings, and the landlord could show, on the balance of probabilities, that he had lost rent because of that, there could be grounds for a claim. Loss of rent claims are a feature of dilapidations claims in the commercial tenancy context (though they are difficult to prove) and as far as I am aware there is no ban on them in a residential context. That's not to say I think it would be successful - I actually doubt a judge would look too kindly on a landlord who tried this - but theoretically yes, I think there could be a risk.

Whilst landlords would be well advised not to force entry against the tenant's wishes, that does not mean there is a bar against taking action against a tenant who is in breach of contract.

See this article and the well reasoned debate in the comments:
www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2014/09/09/all-about-landlords-rights-to-go-into-their-tenants-property/
The author's position is that "The tenant, by excluding the landlord from the property, will put himself in breach of the terms of his tenancy agreement and this may entitle the landlord to compensation, an injunction allowing him in, maybe even to apply for an order for possession. But the landlord will be acting unlawfully if he goes in, with his keys, in the face of a prohibition from the tenant." (not in the main body of the article - in the comments)

Of course, this is all a bit irrelevant to the OP as she is allowing viewings at reasonable times.

I am quite surprised at how many people here feel confident saying authoritatively that the law says X or Y, without providing sources, and effectively giving legal advice perhaps (though I am making assumptions here) without legal training? Quite often the law is not clear cut and this is probably one of those occasions. I am not a solicitor myself and would be the first to say am not qualified to give legal advice. However I do have a law degree and work in this area.

Lastly I would just like to say that I second the Shelter helpline suggestion.

hides

I can assure you that at least one of the people who disagrees with bluntness is a solicitor.

You also have the right to leave the flat in a state. The letting agent cannot tell you off about stuff unless it's going to damage the property. I've seen some really untidy properties when looking! I think 9am on a Saturday is completely unreasonable for anyone, and if you're offering weeknights then you're being extremely accommodating. Unfortunately, I think you need to grit you're teeth and think of how much longer you need to do this. Btw, I always found I was billed for an end of tenancy clean, even if I'd had one so do check as its a way of fleecing money out of you.

They often try that, but it may be worth arguing the place wasn't that standard of cleanliness when you got it. I won part of a deposit dispute on that point. Sometimes they get you to sign something saying it is when you move in, but if you haven't, worth disputing.

On that point, if ever you move into a private rental and it's dirty at the start, email proof to the LL and/or agent. They might not do anything about it at the time but you can use it in evidence later if they try and withhold deposit because the place isn't cleaned.

We will pay for a cleaner, but only because we want to do a deep clean and we are not going to be able to take time off ourselves to do a deep clean before we leave. No way are we using the company he has stipulated though

@Harriet I think having a 'professional' deep clean is a good idea as you can prove, with the receipt, that you've cleaned it properly. It would show how utterly reasonable you are! And it is a pain in the bum.

I became an accidental LL years back when my DH was posted abroad for a while. I was staggered to discover we were being billed for all the same 'extras' as LLs that we had paid as tenants. LAs really taking the mickey as they were getting the money for both, and probably never doing half the job properly anyway. Certainly the carpet hadn't been professionally cleaned after each tenant. It was disgusting when we got back!

*Yesterday 10:23 SenatorBunghole

I can assure you that at least one of the people who disagrees with bluntness is a solicitor

At least two