AIBU to refuse temporary accommodation for external work to our home?

[allowaccess]

Recently we were informed of exterior work to be done to our home (LA property). Nothing inside the house at all. No access needed to complete any of the external work other than access to the garden which is via a side gate not through the property.

We were instructed that for the duration of the work (no specific timeframe just ‘might be a few weeks’ ) that we would be placed in alternative accommodation that was miles away from where we are now and would cause significant issues for us with school as we have two children one with severe SEN. We also didn’t want to leave the house as it would be overwhelming for him to be away from familiarity for no real reason as it’s external work??

So we refused and set out in writing why. We were told no we have to vacate on a certain day. The only reason given when we pushed was ‘it will be noisy’. I said I’m fine to put up with some noise especially as it will only be between 8 am and-6pm. Again they said we need to vacate on the day and provide keys so they have access ??? They dont need access to inside.

The day has come and gone and we have stayed. My housing officer called on day 2 and said we need to allow access to the house while the work is ongoing. I said no as theres no need the work is external. They have said we need to allow access if needed to the team working. I told them again no the said they may need access to facilities! I said in that case they need to get portaloos if that’s the issue.

I then had an email giving another date to vacate for the work and a different address for temporary accommodation? Again I’ve said no. Can they actually force this or is it unreasonable as it’s not interior work ???

It hasn’t even been that noisy at all??

OP pays her rent. If you were a private tenant you wouldn’t be paying for roof repairs, etc. you’d expect the landlord to pay.

as a homeowner when I had my house reroofed I didn’t vacate.

LA houses not market rate rent.

If its to use your toilet, this is unreasonable. As you say, they can use portaloos.

It's irrelevant that SH landlords make lower profit margins than commercial landlords.
The tenants rent still covers the maintenance (over time, often many times over) as well as the business expenses of being major employers and landlords.

Yes
mand her rent pays for maintenance

This is why!

Apart from the rest of it (I'm with you OP), there's no way I'd be handing over my keys to others. They could lose them. Or worse, they could get a spare set cut or multiple spare sets. Having had a good nosey around my home they or their mates could return some other time to rob the place.

HA properties don't always have easily changeable locks, it's not just a case of picking up a new £10 Yale lock from the hardware store and doing it yourself.

All you people saying OP should just suck it up wouldn't be saying that if she was in a private rental or a home owner, it's just discrimination. Nobody in their right mind hands over their keys and allows someone they don't know access to their home and all their possessions, especially for unspecified reasons.

It's not about toilets (although I'm sure they'd be using them given the chance and I wouldn't be happy about that either), that's just bullshit the housing officer has come up with on the spot, under the assumption that all HA tenants are thick as shit and will believe toilet access was a reason to move out. That attitude alone would piss me off.

I've had roof repairs including scaffolding and nobody came inside for that. The roofing contractors were appalling though and did steal various items whilst inside bodging skylight windows (couldn't prove anything) even though I was there at the time (but not constantly standing at their shoulder watching - my mistake).

They did almost no work unless the LL was checking on them. Showed up at 10am, pissed about doing as little work as possible until 12, came back from lunch at 2.30pm-ish, did a bit more work and were gone by 4pm, every day. Then of course the job "overran" and there were days they'd gone off to start the new job elsewhere before coming back to piss about here some more.

No way would I have wanted these people given free access to my home and possessions along with my keys. They were an untrustworthy shower of shite.

I’ve emailed my housing officer. Declined the new offer of temporary accommodation and explained again why. I’ve also asked for clarification about noise levels and reasons for wanting me to vacate and asked about what they mean by ‘facilities’.
They only worked on the house for 2 hours today so I can see why it will take ‘weeks’

Thanks for the update OP
It will be interesting to see what they mean by facilities

But if they want access to go inside tge house that she pays for to use the 'facilities' then it should not be expected.
She says for the water snd utilities it not for the LA to then say other random contractors have a right to use that. If you rent somewhere should your Landlord then have the right to come in and use your toilet because it's theirs?

Contractors have no right to enter the house, while you are not there.
You don't know who these contractors are they could be going through your belongings, personal items or stealing stuff.

If you read my previous posts you’ll see
thats exactly what I’ve been saying

According to shelter website A landlord cannot insist access to your property unless prearranged and someone is home. So no do not hand over keys for access reasons. You do not need to. If they keep pushing tell them you will contact CAB or your local council/MP

That's why the LL wants her decanted in the 1st place.
It's a heap different with SH LL's now being forced to bring properties up to basic standards to meet the renters act in '27, or get in trouble for renting poor condition properties.
Edited to say councils are mainly backing SH lL's finally bringing buildings up to scratch. They too are under pressure to keep SH landlords OK.

Use of the facilities does not just mean the loo. 🙄
I suspect it is also for health and safety, if they're working on the roof, removing some exterior etc. Bits may fall off, there may be dust/particles that aren't good for you. They may need to get in to get to the other side of the roof.

What does that have to do with access to property while you are not there. SH LL still have to abide by the rule of rental law. That states they do not access your home while you are not there. As you pay for the those facilities not them.
NOBODY has the right to access your home that YOU pay for while you are not there. We were LL and also have worked with SH the rules are the same. As long as you are paying rent that is YOUR home and have rights to not allow access unless you are home to supervise it.

OP, keep a diary of how many hours they are there every day.
Also do a walk about video today, on day one as to the state of your interiors, so you have dated proof.
Keep referring to your SEN children and not being prepared to disrupt them.

Email them after a week of the exact hours and times they are on site.

Be a pain in the ass.

Because typically builders leave an atrocious mess?
Seriously? You’re an idiot

Actually according Oxford dictionary to use facilities refers to use of the toilet and or use of running water.

Yes - involve the school… their job is to educate not sort out your housing problems !

You have to allow access with reasonable notice. Where it's clear that's going to be continuous over a long period of time, you have the choice of decanting, showing you can jump through continuous hoops giving enough reasonable access, or getting evicted for denying access for repairs.

I'm one of several access flats for a major project that's gone very very wrong.

I and others refused to decant and I'm one of the few whose managed to continue to jump those hoops sufficiently to prevent action. Others got evicted.
I'm told that was because the courts sided with the LL's who said they legally have to bring their properties up to standard, and had offered the tenants somewhere else to live, because of the amount of access needed, so they weren't unable to give access. Just blocking it.

But as OP said the work can be done without access to inside the property. The LA want access for facilities for the workers. That is not required. Also the use of facilities would mean water usage etc, who is paying for that. Also who is safeguarding OPs belongings from contractors. Under these circumstances OP has a right to refuse access without her being there. As use of facilities is not a requirement of work getting done.

OP doesn't want to "control everything about how and when repairs are done".
She wants to understand why she is expected to vacate her home, and not to let random workmen have access whilst she's not there.

Having had the misfortune to live next door to social housing, the workmen were appalling in terms of mess and damage to things on my property. And that was just outside! (And the HA were arsey, saying "well you want the work done" until I pointed out it wasn't my property so didn't care about that!)

I worked in prisons at the time. Not only did I know the officers professionally but they had to respond to trespass offences for prison staff.

It’s not denying access for repairs though
They have said they want to use the facilities

@Dancingintherain09 and @BrownTroutBluesAgain I hear you.

I guess it comes down to what they mean by facilities. You're both right that it does seem to mean the loo.
Here they expanded it to mean water supplies, the 32amp kitchen ring mains, and the easiest straight access route to the back of the property, rather than specifically just the loo.

(Assumption by LL's was we had to cover the power and water used, at least if we wouldn't vacate)

If they really mean just the loo, expecting her to vacate is beyond ridiculous.

On ITV News a couple of years ago there was an item about a SH tenant who set up a camera to see why work was taking so long The camera caught the Peabody contractor going through her knicker drawer