To be there for the viewings?

[SachaStark]

My landlord is selling the house we live in, and the estate agent is doing about 10 viewings tomorrow afternoon.

AIBU to be present for the viewings? The LL is totally fine with it, but the estate agent seems quite put out.

My reasonings are that, whilst it might be a property to sell to the estate agent, it’s also our home, and filled with our possessions, and I’d rather be in the house to keep an eye on things. Also, why should I inconvenience myself by making myself scarce for several hours? I’ve got a stack of exercise books to mark as it’s half term week (secondary teacher), and I don’t much relish the thought of dragging all those books out and about with me whilst I try to find an appropriate place to work.

If it were an ordinary day without these viewings, that’s what I would be doing, so should I just be able to carry on as normal?

[quote DelilahTheParrot]@colouringcrayons you mean having a clause makes you a bad LL? Why?[/quote]
Any LL who tries to overstep/wiggle round the standard legal rights of tenants is a bad LL. I was a LL and would never have asked this of my tenants. I think it is about respect for tenants.

@Hollyhocksarenotmessy it’s standard in all tenancy agreements. The extent to which its enforceable is questionable but its there to show intent. The LL won’t expect viewings unless in the last two months of the tenancy, the tenant will expect them.

The purpose is to reduce the unoccupied period between lets. If it became standard that LL can’t have access to house until after tenant has gone, rents will go up as essentially you’d be asking that noone live in the house for 13-14 months not 12 (because most people need 1-2 months notice to move).

@colouringcrayons you’d never have asked them to allow viewings during the tenancy, or never have asked them to sign that clause?

It’s completely normal to have the clause in there, you probably had it without realising, especially if it was drawn up through a Lettings agent.

To the OP, you don't have to allow any viewings unless you are happy to do so. Please read up on Shelter on this. Even if your contract states viewing have to be allowed, you don't, they can't override the law.

You have every right to stay in your house when viewing are taking place,

@Londonnight all correct but a dick move really. If I was given a reference whereby the prospective tenant had refused access to viewings in their former home I’d refuse them the tenancy, as is my right to do so. I’d also not let an outgoing tenant out of eg the last couple of weeks of their contract if their moving date is early (which I usually do out of good will), as is my contractual right to do so.

So we all have rights. The question is whether it’s really in your best interest to exercise them.

[quote NannyAndJohn]@honeygirlz Some tenancy agreements include a clause which states that the tenant is obliged to allow viewings. I know this because I always make sure to include it in mine.[/quote]
That's not a legally enforceable clause
You really should know this as a landlord, or are you relying on tenants being unaware of their rights?

I realise the purpose of it, but it's still an attempt to influence the tenant into giving up their statutory rights. It's not questionable as to whether it's enforceable, it absolutely is unenforceable.

It doesn't matter what type of contract it is, tenancy, sales, employment, it shouldn't contain anything contrary to the law, and if it does, it can't be enforced, and it makes the contract issuer look dodgy as hell.

I allowed viewings when I left my last home as my landlord asked nicely instead of lying to me that I had to, agreed convenient times, and there was no reason to refuse. She was a good landlord, and I understood that she wanted to avoid an empty period.
No way would I allow an estate agent to troop 10 viewings through in a day.

[quote DelilahTheParrot]@colouringcrayons you’d never have asked them to allow viewings during the tenancy, or never have asked them to sign that clause?

It’s completely normal to have the clause in there, you probably had it without realising, especially if it was drawn up through a Lettings agent.[/quote]
You have no grounds to assume I had the clause 'without realising'.

Either you think the clause is right or wrong. I think it is wrong.

@Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep our contracts are drawn up by Lettings agents like Knight Frank and Savill’s and Countrywide, it’s in all of them.

[quote DelilahTheParrot]@Londonnight all correct but a dick move really. If I was given a reference whereby the prospective tenant had refused access to viewings in their former home I’d refuse them the tenancy, as is my right to do so. I’d also not let an outgoing tenant out of eg the last couple of weeks of their contract if their moving date is early (which I usually do out of good will), as is my contractual right to do so.[/quote]
I would not refuse a tenant for this. If you refuse tenancies for things like this, you're a bad landlord and part of the housing problem in this country.

@colouringcrayons I don’t have the right to assume.... oh dear!!!!

[quote DelilahTheParrot]**@colouringcrayons* I don’t have the right to assume*.... oh dear!!!![/quote]
it's just a turn of phrase. What I mean is - they are trying to make themselves feel better by assuming everyone else does things the way they do.

[quote DelilahTheParrot]@Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep our contracts are drawn up by Lettings agents like Knight Frank and Savill’s and Countrywide, it’s in all of them.[/quote]
And it's legally unenforceable. Letting agents are not regulated and there is no criteria to become one, so the market is flooded with cowboys who don't know the law or care about it. Your letting agents can tell you that you can put a clause in saying your tenant can only eat curry on a Tuesday or have a maximum of 3 friends over at once or any other crazy thing but if it contradicts the law then it's meaningless.

@colouringcrayons you have no right to assume I’m a bad LL ...

Why should I accept a tenant who will mean that the house has to stay empty for 1-2 months after they leave, over one who doesn’t?

I think it is fine to stay. Estate agents are a pain in the backside, don’t let them rile you. I remember being in a rented flat as a young woman with my female flatmate who had a communicable disease at the time. The EA clearly thought we were making this up simply to avoid viewings, came round anyway with some potential buyers! Oh how I enjoyed cheerfully asking the buyers to keep their distance from my flatmate and not touch anything, as we were both quarantining due to the disease and were not supposed to be in contact with anyone. The looks of horror...

@DelilahTheParrot

So we all have rights. The question is whether it’s really in your best interest to exercise them.

What? Yes it is.

If LLs then use it to bully you afterwards, the problem is LLs.

Some act like feudal overlords.

[quote DelilahTheParrot]@colouringcrayons you have no right to assume I’m a bad LL ...

Why should I accept a tenant who will mean that the house has to stay empty for 1-2 months after they leave, over one who doesn’t?[/quote]
You don't have to.

If I was to sell my house of course I would make myself scarce because it would make potential buyers more comfortable and may help me sell the property. But you are not selling the house, your LL is. If you agree to viewings and to making yourself scarce the LL is benefiting doubly from your rent and the ability to more easily sell the property.

You are being more than reasonable allowing viewings at all. Do not allow the agent or push you out when you have marking to do!

@colouringcrayons so me not letting a tenant out of their contract early, or charging them for chargeable items in the inventory ... is bullying them? Because I’m enforcing the contract... yet it’s ok for them to “enforce the law”?

Please.

You don't have to

Thank you, I don’t and I wouldn’t.

And it's legally unenforceable. Letting agents are not regulated and there is no criteria to become one, so the market is flooded with cowboys who don't know the law or care about it. Yes quite and the number of ignorant landlords makes it easier for agents to offer poor service etc.

[quote DelilahTheParrot]**@colouringcrayons* so me not letting a tenant out of their contract early, or charging them for chargeable items in the inventory ... is bullying* them? Because I’m enforcing the contract... yet it’s ok for them to “enforce the law”?

Please.[/quote]
I haven't said anything about these two issues on this thread, are you struggling to read?

@DelilahTheParrot you’ve changed your tune now that you’ve been schooled on the law. You’ve gone from saying below

Absolute tosh. If the tenant wants this then they can pay for an extra month or two of the house being unoccupied after they leave, which is how long it usually takes to find new tenants and have them move in. Why should the LL be 8-10% out of pocket?

To this

all correct but a dick move really.

Which is it, were you unaware of the law or just planning to get away with being a bad LL?

So it's half-term and you're choosing this particular day to do your marking.
Of course.