To refuse viewings during tenancy

[Folle]

I gave a month's notice to end the current tenancy. I just received an email from the estate agent saying 'I have booked a viewing for 6pm tomorrow - will you be there to facilitate access or should we bring keys?"
This is a hugely stressful time for me and I simply cannot deal with strangers traipsing through the house.
Can I refuse to have viewings during the rest of my tenancy?

and you saw my reply where I said that I would?

I saw your reply where you said “of course it’s a negative”, not that this was merely your opinion.

It’s certainly not something that would ever have made me bat an eyelid, given I never expected tenants to accommodate viewings. It would make me think their previous LL was a twit though

"I've never seen why I should ask my tenants to donate their some of their limited leisure time & work - staying in and extra tidying & cleaning up - for free"

Suitable tenants for my properties would expect everything to look immaculate

There was a thread on here a while ago about a tenant being harassed by their LL because supposedly prospective tenants were being put off by the usual mess of a family with young DC.
Posters were asking why she hadn't wiped worktops and tidied up every day.

Many people don't like strangers going though their home, where their valuables are, family pictures are, even (loosely) supervised by an agent
They also don't like their leisure time being taken up when they are home.

It's a cheek to expect this for free, unless an LL has done a lot of favour for the tenant - and letting them live their for rent isn't a favour.

On MN, many people won't even open the door to their own visitors,
so I'm surprised at all those - I suspect LLs ! - who think people should let in total strangers for the profit of their LL

@JacquesHammer provide me with some external source or law that proves your point, or your legal qualifications?

@IWorkAtTheCheescakeFactory

It’s really not 'the norm' to allow viewings! It’s up to each individual tenant and none of them should be punished by having deposits deducted/withheld or getting shitty references as a result of declining viewings. Honestly.

This exactly.

There is no need to mention it at ALL in a reference, (that the tenant didn't want any viewings while they were still living there,) and it's pure spite to do that.

As a number of posters have said, it's not LAW that the tenants have to allow viewings, and any landlord who mentions this in a reference (or refuses a reference,) is just spiteful and mean.

No wonder people in private let have such a hard time with spiteful, vengeful, bitter little despots, writing up mean references for 'revenge' and rubbing their hands with glee, (like @SheruMoo ,) when their tenant doesn't get the home they wanted, because their application was refused (because of the reference...)

It's not LYING to not put it in the reference that the tenant wouldn't allow viewings. It IS however, spiteful and mean to put it in.

Some landlords and landladies are great, but some are very poor.... (and a small handful of the latter, are on this thread.......)

Rainy - as you will see above I'm a LL and I think that not allowing viewings is shitty - however it is completely correct that, regardless of what the contract says, tenants have the right to refuse access for everything except emergencies and gas and electrical safety testing. I cba to find the references for you, but if you look into I can assure you you will find all the proof you need.

“Bitter little despots” How ridiculous. It’s not spiteful, it’s relevant, and it is true.

bigchoc I don’t answer the door to unexpected guests, but was always happy to accommodate viewings for my landlord. I don’t think it’s the same thing at all, as I am expecting the prospective tenant.

I thought socket house was a typo, but no!

If a month’s void is worth £2,000 perhaps the landlord would like to offer £500 rent reduction as an incentive to allow viewings of a tidy home. There are way too many doormats and arseholes on this thread.

I would facilitate viewings for a good landlord who had a) fixed any problems quickly and without a fuss and b) not conducted excessive inspections. Shitty messages from the estate agent would have me refusing everything and telling the LL why I had done so.

@thecatneuterer it's interesting how many posters have said this, but no-one can provide a link to any credible external link that supports this. If it was that obvious, you would think providing a link would be easy.

When I am moving, I tend to pack my stuff, so nothing for the prospective tenants to rummage through!

Itsarainyday555

You’re looking for the Covenant to Quiet Enjoyment.

“Quiet enjoyment includes the right to exclude others from the premises, the right to peace and quiet, the right to clean premises, and the right to basic services such as heat and hot water and, for high-rise buildings, elevator service”

The first sentence being the pertinent.

I would facilitate viewings for a good landlord who had a) fixed any problems quickly and without a fuss and b) not conducted excessive inspections. Shitty messages from the estate agent would have me refusing everything and telling the LL why I had done so.

Well yes, and I think that's the crux of the problem here. The agent's rudeness and presumptiveness (is that a word?) has got the OP's back up to start with. Any request like this should be approached as asking for a favour and stressing that any viewings should be done only in whatever way is convenient to the tenant. That's one reason I don't use agents - you can't control their communication with the tenant. Good communication and a good relationship is key. Probably that's why I've had so few problems like this.

rainy - I'm sure it is easy I just can't be arsed to put myself out to do it. Just as, it would seem, you can't either.

@JacquesHammer where does that say it overrides a contractual obligation entered into between contracting parties? Quiet enjoyment is the default position, but not if an alteration is made between the parties.

Oh for heavens sake I'm hardly a little despot! But thanks for the laugh. We moved out of our house and into rented ourselves to take care of DH's mother. We are very clear at the beginning that we would like to be able to show our old house at a time convenient to the tenant to prospective tenants once they have given notice. This is hardly unreasonable! Our currently landlord is a class A cuntpuffin who hasn't fixed major problems. I still haven't refused viewings.

@thecatneuterer because no such law exists - the parties are free the contract that the tenant has to allow viewings, and there is no statute that overrides that. Your protestations to the contrary are bullshit.

itsrainy

I assume it relates to any such term being unfair. A tenancy is a form of consumer contract and as such a clause would interfere with the right to peaceable enjoyment, it would be unenforceable.

However I don’t know if there’s any authority on whether such terms are generally unenforceable, or if it’s that they arguably are. They seem to be commonly accepted to be but I can not locate any such law at source.

@Quaffy your reasoning may have some merit (and thank you for responding with some thought put into it), but there is no case law I am aware of and none anyone else can point to which suggests a contractual term which allows for viewings is unenforceable due to quiet enjoyment. I am happy to be proven wrong if someone can refer to some case law.

rainy - you are going to feel very stupid when you finally get around to looking into this.

Anyway, try this link to start with www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/my-tenant-wont-allow-me-into-the-property-for-viewings/#access

The main point is that, if it says there must be reasonable access for viewings in the tenancy agreement, your only recourse, if they say no, would be to issue a Section 8 eviction notice for breach of the tenancy agreement. But there's no point to doing that if they're leaving anyway.

If you go against their wishes and do viewings without their permission then they can sue you for harassment.

but there is no case law I am aware of and none anyone else can point to which suggests a contractual term which allows for viewings is unenforceable due to quiet enjoyment. I am happy to be proven wrong if someone can refer to some case law.

There doesn't need to be any case law as such, as if someone breaks the terms of tenancy agreement all you can do is seek to evict them because of it. If you try to force them to comply in some way then that's harassment - and there are plenty of examples of LLs being sued for that.

@thecatneuterer I'll quote you from the website you're using shall I:

"If the tenant does refuse access while there are ‘reasonable’ viewing clauses and the landlord has attempted to orchestrate them reasonably and with fair warning, yes, the tenant IS in breach of contract."

So the tenant cannot refuse without being in breach of contract. So you're advice that the tenant is not bound by their contractual obligations is simply wrong.

My understanding was that you absolutely can put it into a contact that viewings are to be allowed. No one is forcing anyone to sign that contract. If they then don't they are in breach of the contract and of course perfectly within their rights to disclose that breach to anyone asking for a reference. How that is unreasonable I don't know. Where it all gets trickier is if the landlord simply does the viewings against the wishes of the tenant. The tenant can then sue to harassment but that requires the resource and will to get through court. Realistically if you agreed to bloody let them do viewings then do.

There’s a distinction between:

A) not legally enforceable, such as a clause being struck down as in restraint of trade

B) legally enforceable in principle but not practically enforceable

I’m a lawyer but not a landlord and tenant one (or at least, not for many years!) I had assumed people meant the former but sounds like catneuterer it is the latter?

"If the tenant does refuse access while there are ‘reasonable’ viewing clauses and the landlord has attempted to orchestrate them reasonably and with fair warning, yes, the tenant IS in breach of contract." So the tenant cannot refuse without being in breach of contract. So you're advice that the tenant is not bound by their contractual obligations is simply wrong.

Christ almighty. Once again. Yes they are bound by their contractual obligations. But you can't enforce them. All you can do is evict them using their failure to stick to the contract as a reason. But that's still not going to get you the viewings is it?