To refuse viewings once I’ve given notice

[WryJadeWren]

Once I’ve given notice, I’ve always felt that my time and space should be mine.

In the final weeks I’m usually packing, organising a move, working and trying to keep life ticking over. Having people come in and out for viewings feels disruptive and stressful, especially when it’s framed as an expectation rather than a request.

My view has always been that landlords or agents are free to show the property once it’s empty, on their own time but that I’m not obliged to facilitate viewings while I’m still living there.

AIBU?

While you're renting. That's exactly what it is.

I don't believe this sorry. Part of the reason we have such a housing crisis is the extortionate price of properties. If you're a landlord who's property price has actually lost value long term then you paid way over it's worth when you bought it. Voids and empty periods are not your asset losing value, that's the landlord not having a tenant pay the cost of the property for a month or two, and I think they've made an error investing in property if they can't afford to do that.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-15446443/London-flat-price-armageddon-values-homeowners-experts.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/homeandproperty/flat-prices-plummet-according-to-official-figures-and-not-just-in-london/ar-AA23Etof

You seem to have missed the part of my post where I said property prices losing value long term. Are you suggesting someone who bought a flat 15 years ago is currently crippled by their estimated value being 5% lower than say last year? Or are you linking this to suggest someone who bought a property a few years ago to be a LL has now lost value? Which is exactly the kind of people I'm saying shouldn't have tried to be LLs in the first place of they can't afford to own and maintain a property long-term as an investment.

Read my post - "Landlords who bought flats in recent years" - and remember we have not really seen proper interest rates rises yet, how much value will be shaved off 15 year ago purchases remains to be seen, it won"t be the windfall that some people expected and if flats very hard to sell now.

Why on earth are landlords trying to sell a property they bought within recent years though? That's not how investing in property works unless what you mean is they were looking for a monthly income from owning a rental and found out the hard way that it doesn't work like that. All they need to do is hold on to the property and over time they will absolutely have gained a valuable asset. Property prices have increased around 70% over the last 15 years, you can't be serious suggesting anyone who purchased 15 years ago isn't making a profit unless they chose to do some daft interest only repayment option. If they can't afford to pay the cost of the property without a tenant constantly paying the cost of it then they're on the wrong game. I don't think any of us are gonna get a violin out for anyone who wanted to try and make a short term gain out of being a landlord or someone who put off paying back any capital on a loan they took out on a buy to let, and it's ridiculous to try and make out landlords are the ones hard done by in this economy instead of the millions of people who will never get on the property ladder at all.

The rental agreement usually say you have to allow viewings

But that doesn’t override the law which says a tenant can say no.

This - I also sold my rental property as I just could not navigate the rights of tenants any more. This is why there is a shortage of houses to rent now as private landlords are all giving up. I always treated all my tenants fairly and it was not reciprocated.

You are wrong there, I inherited my rental as the remainderman and trustee of a life interest trust. I am prohibited from selling it until the beneficiary of the life interest (which is the rental income) has passed away - so I'm an accidental landlord and don't make a penny out of it to boot!

The rental agreement could say that the tenant has to make the landlord dinner every Tuesday and it would be no more legally enforceable as the viewings one

Contracts don’t override the law.

Reasonable access for emergency repairs or essential maintenance doesn’t remotely cover viewings

No I accept that. My remark was too sweeping.

I meant those who move in with a partner or move away, and then keep their property as a rental. Too often people in that situation refer to themselves as accidental landlords, when really they’re not - they’ve chosen not to sell (just as I have done).

They are tenants so are paying for it to be their space.

If they want to bring prospective buyers round while you're packing up it's not really in the landlord's best interest as you are not obliged to spruce it up for them and they won't be seeing it at its best.

It is generally in the contract and tenants do usually accommodate this. Yes, it’s an imposition but you can set some ground rules with the letting agents. I don’t know the legalities of it. As a landlord, if the tenant said no, I wouldn’t push it but I would feel massively let down by them and it would cost me thousands. Long void periods are costly in terms of lost rent and council tax / utilities etc. If your landlord has been a good one (timely repairs and not increased the rent mid tenancy) you’d be a bit of an arsehole to refuse.

Contracts run alongside the law, lawyers study tort as a complete subject,this is contract law. Law itself is often quite loose and is informed by case law and contracts.A contract cannot be made to hold if any of it's parts are unlawful, but that does not mean that contracts cannot be enforced.

Incentivise the tenant? If vacancy costs thousands then reducing rent by £50 seems a good deal. But the entitlement of expecting a tenant to facilitate viewings - it’s nice if they do, but it’s ultimately their living space. Tenants don’t care about your investment.

Seems LLs refuse to accept any kind of financial loss We’ve already heard here that if the landlord puts rent up for the next tenants it’s OP’s fault!

Yes, that would make economic sense for the landlord, but in general people don’t need paying to be nice if you’re nice to them. I have never increased rent mid tenancy (because I want good tenants to stay and void periods are expensive) and one tenant has been in for over 12 years.

Irrelevant - the law says you don't have to, and an agreement at odds with that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

YABU. Your landlord needs to ideally get someone in as you leave, otherwise they will be out of pocket having to cover any mortgage payments, bills, council tax etc for the time the property is empty. Although somewhat disruptive, they are running a business.

Perhaps I'm heartless, but the thought of a landlord paying the mortgage and other expenses on his own property for a month or two doesn't give me the slightest twinge of sympathy.

"But my plan was for other people to buy me this house! Yes, I took out the mortgage, but I never budgeted for the cost of paying it myself, not even for one month!"

Oh dear...

The tenancy agreement you signed will cover this scenario.
When we gave notice, our agents did an open evening for about 90 minutes. That was long enough to get it let.

In my experience, a single event of an hour or two is enough to get a place re-let. No constant disruption. I think that would be reasonable to allow. Selling is more disruptive but I think LLs tend to give rental discounts to make up for inconvenience.