To make landlord wait 3 weeks?

[Clg199]

We’ve privately rented a house for just over two years. Since we moved in we’ve been telling the landlord that the windows are rotten and need replacing. We can no longer open the main windows in our bedroom as the frames are so rotten we’re worried the glass will just fall out. On three occasions we’ve arranged to be at home to let people in to quote for replacing them but nothing has been done.

We handed our notice in last Monday. On Wednesday the letting agent tells us the landlord wants us to let people come and replace the front windows up and downstairs (bedroom and living room) and the front door. We said that as we were moving out we’d rather they waited three weeks longer and did it then. The landlord is now saying it’s been booked for 2 months and the guys have booked hotels (they’re not local) so we really should let them in.

My concerns are that the house is full of boxes and is slightly chaotic, it’s flipping freezing at the moment, and despite what they say there’ll be left over mess that we’ll then have to clean before we move out and I really could do without the disruption.

The letting agents have come back quoting our tenancy agreement saying that we really have to let them in as they’ve given more than 24 hours notice (I know that we don’t HAVE to).

AIBU to stick to my guns and tell them that he’ll have to wait until we’re gone?

Don't let them in at all.

Do you need your deposit back?

Depends on how much you need your deposit as to whether you let your landlord do the work. I imagine if you are difficult then your deposit will dwindle to nothing and be withheld.

Landlord sounds awful.

user1499333856, fortunately, the country took action against that sort of abuse and the deposit scheme means Landlords can't do that anymore.

Deposit laws for the last decade mean either 'they' can't deduct or op can sue for non protection.

am a landlord and a protected deposit us very unlikely to be withheld unless property is disgustingly dirty or damaged. Landlords like this really piss me off . Tell him to feck off and sort it when you've left

Agree, they can't withhold deposit over this, and if they try to for other reasons you can force them to a tribunal and bring this up.

There probably is a clause in your contract saying they can do this, letting agents often put them in, but it's not enforceable as the law overrides it - the key phrase here is your right to quiet enjoyment of the property.

I second the idea of changing the lock barrels until you move out to prevent them from getting in.

I mean, if they try to for other not-true reasons to get back at you. Obviously if you've broken the kitchen or burnt a carpet or something you'd have to pay up.

I'm a letting agent. They cannot make you give access. They cannot make you allow photos and they certainly cannot just "take" your deposit.

Just make sure you take photos of everything when you leave. Dated
He will try and keep your deposit

Make sure any photos you take are very clear from floor to ceiling and in good light. My landlord tried to convince a judge that I had trashed the place and then broke in after he’d done extensive renovations and taken the photographs presented as evidence. Cost him thousands in legal fees and three times my deposit back. Stupid dickhead but when you leave take lots and lots of photos and a meter reading of everything. Take a photo of the meter reading.

Report him to the tax man, likely a tax dodger.

Surely they can use the same photos from last time to advertise it - they don't need new ones.

If you don't let them in you are in breach of the lease, liable for damages which in this case is likely the rearrangemenrt cost. I'd also be claiming against you for refusing to allow the managing agents in to inspect (usually a provision in the lease) and advertise prior to the end of the term.

Shelter, whilst an excellent service, often get it wrong

If you don't let them in you are in breach of the lease

Why do people write things that are patently false with such conviction?

JustMarriedBecca you appear to have confused any old bullshit written in a lease by a crap landlord- with the actual law !
Please God, you are not a landlord who doesn't even understand the basics.

Perhaps there should be a 'Landlord foundation certificate ' where LLs are obliged to attend a LL & T legal rights and obligations seminar before being allowed to rent property. Then people like JustMarriedBecca could have the certificate revoked if they coerce or act outside the law and with it,the right to be a LL.

If either of you are baptised Christians, point out that Easter is coming up, and to have such disruption in Holy Week would be inappropriate.

The if the landlord still objects ask if they would still insist for a family of Jewish people during Rosh Hashanah or Muslims in Ramadan.

^ Wtf?

If you don't let them in you are in breach of the lease, liable for damages which in this case is likely the rearrangemenrt cost. I'd also be claiming against you for refusing to allow the managing agents in to inspect (usually a provision in the lease) and advertise prior to the end of the term.

Hahahahahahaha.

No. I'm a lawyer with 10 years of professional experience in this field.

I'm simply pointing out that to go against the lease is in breach of it. It's a contract. Remedy for breach of contract is damages.

I'm not a landlord.

But I deal regularly with people who have been incorrectly advised by shelter or CAB.

Yes, but if a contract with regards to a lease impeding on the residents right to peaceful enjoyment (or whatever the phrasing is) then it’s not a lease that can be forced anyway. Jesus even I know that and I’m not a lawyer

I'm simply pointing out that to go against the lease is in breach of it. It's a contract. Remedy for breach of contract is damages.

Statutory rights cannot be removed by contract terms. So the contract can say anything it likes but it won’t necessarily be enforceable.

24 hour access for routine maintainance is not acceptable legally.

Generally the Courts will consider that where a tenant has agreed in advance and entered into a lease on a caveat emptor basis that a landlord can enter to carry out repairs, that the quiet enjoyment provisions are overridden to some extent. Obviously that doesn't provide for someone to come around on no notice but a 24-48 hour notice period would usually be considered to be reasonable in the circumstances.

In terms of the OP, the lease will usually provide for re-entry in the last two months of the term on reasonable notice for marketing purposes. Obviously there is an implication of reasonableness but with all of these things, maintaining that rights of quiet enjoyment supersede all other lease rights is just wrong.

And yet it isn’t wrong. My landlord paid for a cheap solicitor who advised him badly too.