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?

" 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 "

This is patently wrong.
Why do people spout such utter tripe?

Everything else apart. If you were to decide to let them in to do the work you need to be very careful that they don't do any damage to anything in the property or leave any mess that you could be blamed for.

Landlord is being completely unreasonable to expect you to put up with all the fuss and inconvenience while organising your move. Can't see how this can be acceptable in law tbh.

In thirty years in the courts I have yet to hear of a landlord who has been granted damages for tenants that have contravened a lease - where those terms contradict a tenants statutory rights.
You may be a lawyer JustMarriedBecca but if your advice to the landlord in this situation were to 'sue for damages' , my advice would be. 'Get a better lawyer, one with real life experience of landlord and tenant disputes and a larger grip on reality'

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.

I would absolutely fucking love this. Landlords should be licenced, and it should include a course and actual exams they have to take, to prove that they understand the law and that they are not complete arses towards tenants. Letting agents should have to take the same thing.

I've had many good landlords, I'm not slagging them all off, but there are so many cowboys, including in lettings agencies.

I also think that if the contract they have you sign has unenforceable clauses in it there should be a consequence for the landlord/agency. Fines paid to Shelter or something.

@justmarriedbecca are you a housing lawyer or contract lawyer?

Can you cite cases where judges have actually ruled on the lines you suggested?

Wales does have compulsory landlord training. Previous threads show it is a waste of time as no enforcement. Slumlords ignore, good landlords incur costs so rents rise.

Tenants are better training themselves with the info on gov.UK and asking searching questions before signing. The only way to stop slumlords is to starve them.

Even if you have to live in London.

The rent smart Wales thing is pointless in my experience. Landlord has no clue about anything still.

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.

Wow, what nonsense! A tenant can refuse entry and there is nothing a landlord can do about it. Have you never watched the bailiff programmes? A tenant would need to stop paying, be served a Section 8 and be taken to court in order for a landlord to be granted possession in order to gain lawful entry. If a ll attempts entry against the tenant’s will, the law is on the tenant’s side. You cannot encore inspections or entrance to the property except in case of an emergency according to the law. About which you seem to know little.

Gide the poster claiming the it would be breach of contract did not say that entry could be enforced, only that the leasee would be in breach of contract and liable for damages if sued. That’s a very different claim from suggesting the landlord could gain legal access. I’m not claiming that that poster is correct (my understanding follows that of the majority claiming statutory rights would mean the courts would not provide the landlord with relief - but I’m not a lawyer) just pointing out that you have misunderstood the poster’s claim.

Why did I get deleted?!