Can LL enter flat without permission?

[wildsummerdreams]

Hi all, our landlord wants to enter the flat for a routine safety inspection, but I'm away travelling and don't want her to be in the flat without us there. I've asked her to rearrange the visit but she's being quite persistent.

I feel this is an invasion of our privacy. Would it be breach of contract if she enters the flat without our permission?

www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/landlords-right-of-entry/

Under any kind of lease or tenancy, a landlord is required by common law to allow his tenants ‘exclusive possession’ and ‘quiet enjoyment’ of the premises during the tenancy. In other words, tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant’s consent, except for good reason.

Irrespective of what maybe written in the agreed contract between a landlord and a tenant (e.g. a clause that states the landlord is allowed to enter the property without permission), it is still the tenant’s statutory right to live in quiet enjoyment, therefore any clauses that conflicts with that right will not be legally enforceable.

Everyone else in the world seems to understand, I can keep going if you like?

www.privatehousinginformation.co.uk/site/148.asp

It is the tenant’s right not to be unreasonably disturbed or harassed whilst living in the landlord’s property [See criminal harassment section 6.2.12]. The landlord is giving the tenant the right to occupy the property as their home, the landlord is not entitled to enter the tenant’s living area without permission.

sorry you don't understand tawny but no need to be so rude. some sections from blogs that don't even say what you think are not legal authority.

i posted the section from the statute already. entering a property to assess fire safety following reasonable notice would not constitute harassment criminal or otherwise. its a perfectly reasonable and lawful thing to do.

Just a tip - if you note a lot of the things you post above have qualifiers. so "unwarranted" intrusion by the landlord is what you are protected against. a right not to be "unreasonably" disturbed. so these are not some sort of unqualified rights that the people on the blogs are even setting out even if somehow that would override the statute i posted earlier.

Yes of course the landlord cant enter the property when they feel like it. but they can enter the property to undertake repairs or assess what repairs are needed with 24 hours notice in accordance with the act i posted earlier.

jon Thank goodness these posters who claim to know everything aren't LLs. They would be in jail or facing serious fines for non compliance of HMO rules!

TawnyPort is right; zsazsajuju, the landlord cannot enter the property in a non-emergency, with or without 24-hr notice, without the tenant's consent.

AFAIK, the right to quiet enjoyment is common law, ie 'derived from custom and judicial precedent' rather than expressly written in any conveniently-quotable statutes.

That's why it's the focus of so many legal blogs, legal articles, etc. That's why there are guides to the rights of access on so many landlord resource sites and property firms, and nobody reputable is ever saying 'yeah, give notice then let yourself in'. Quiet enjoyment is an implied right which has to be balanced against other, sometimes contradictory-seeming or clearer-looking statutes.

You can ignore that, and keep quoting the statute which seems to validate your position (about landlord having right to access after 24-hr notice) but it's been said a million times: this is not a full or accurate understanding of the situation. No reputable property lawer, letting agents' legal department or other official source would ever tell a landlord that it's fine to gain access against tenants' wishes for any non-emergency. You would be putting yourself at serious liability.

This does sometimes leave landlords between a rock and a hard place when tenants are being obstructive. But I have limited sympathy for landlords who completely ignore the legal situation and just repeat 24-hrs notice, 24-hrs notice, 24-hrs notice. You're not listening and you don't want to listen.

zsa Same to you too. I find it ironic that LLs are defending another LL who is abiding by the law by getting these inspections completed and the posters who are defending tenants are clearly PITA tenants who are probably nightmares for their LLs.

Surely a tenant has the same legal rights regardless of who their landlord is?
Same with all landlords - private, housing association, council - have the same legal rights?

clearly PITA tenants who are probably nightmares for their LLs.

In other words: tenants who speak English, who have researched the law and know their rights, who are not in vulnerable situations and cannot be bullied.

Yes. What a nightmare. There was a great post a few pages back about how small-time landlords are on the way out. Every time I see a self-defined 'lovely' or 'decent' landlord here who deliberately undermines their tenants' rights, and thinks everything's still fine because at least they're not an actual slumlord, I think: give me the professionals any day. IME, big-scale landlords and large letting agencies will push the law as far as it'll go, but they're aware at exactly which point unethical behaviour becomes illegal, and will generally pull up there.

And they rarely make you listen to glurge about how nice they are and how all their tenants love them and how hard this whole landlording thing is and nobody appreciates them.

"Your landlord or their representatives may be allowed reasonable access to carry out inspections or repairs, but must first get your permission."

What happens then if the permission is unreasonably withheld.

I have no wish to visit tenanted properties unless I have to. I really only do so:

1. To carry out legally required safety checks either for gas or HMO licensing.

1. Because of an emergency or because the tenant has requested a repair.

1. Because block management require access for block maintenance. (The latter is really tricky as I have no control at all over timings. At the moment one block is about to have new windows, and another is about to have external done, incuding the painting of window frames. I will do my best including not handing over keys but instead supervising access.)

1. Marketing the flat at the end of a tenancy. Here is is brilliant if the tenant is helpful, but I would not force it if the tenant were either arsy or filthy, as it would be counter productive.

What do I do if the tenant "unreasonably" withholds permisson for works related to 1, 2 or 3? POtentially putting themselves and other in the building at risk.

As for Slievenamon's comment "Good plan, let to foreigners as much as possible so they don't know their legal rights! Aren't you clever hmm"
she may be surprised to learn that many "forriners" have good jobs, are perfectly capable of knowing their rights, but can accept that properties need to be maintained and kept safe. Indeed welcome a landlord who keeps their home in good condition and responds as promptly as posisble to problems. Its seems a pecularly British entitlement to expect good maintenance/safety without any inconvenience or infringement of "rights".

I also wonder about Hiddenmnetter's "And yet, in my own house, if that day didn’t suit me I would tell the contractor to come another day that did suit.". I would love her address book of central London contractors who come at her, rather than their, convenience. Sure they dont come if it is clearly inconvenient to the tenant, but 9.00am on a Tuesday monring, does not happen. Or only in a strange MN world. (I then enjoy those threads about what arses London workmen are. Perhaps only when their clients are entitled former tenants. Strange thing but you get more done if you work with people and show flexibility.)

And Springtrolls, my understanding is that safety and other requirements are far less onerous for Local Authority landlords, than they are for private ones. So they may not have the need for access.

Springtrolls, I think the basic rights are the same but the landlord's methods of legally gaining access differ, e.g. I read that housing association landlords need an injunction or a possession order to enter properties against the wishes of their tenants, whereas local authorities can apply for a warrant of entry instead. Tenants in HMOs have (AFAIK: it's not my area) standard rights to exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment in their contracted rooms, but the landlord can enter communal areas. And if you're classed as a lodger it's different again.

Obachan on TMOs you are probably out of date. Increasingly any shared flat, 2 bed say, is subject to HMO licensing, unless occupied by a single household. So no contracted rooms as such.

spring It's a bit more complex than that.

First you have to consider the home. Is it HMO or not. If HMO then much more stringent safety regulations apply. If not a HMO then you only need a gas safety certificate and appliances inspected every 5 years.

Secondly you consider the tenants and their needs. I have a wheelchair bound tenant in a two story home. I have a complete H&S review performed and the fire department oversee their plan of evacuation. For tenants with small children on higher floors I have window guards installed on windows which are not an escape route.

Thirdly you then have to consider the type of lease. Housing authorities have slightly different rules than private LLs. HA homes often come with no flooring or appliances. Private leases have carpets, kitchen appliances etc. with most also being semi furnished.

The biggest difference here is the HMO vs nonHMO. The regulations are onerous for smaller private LLs. As soon as you get some concentration of properties it's fine. It's also relatively new legislation so finding qualified persons to perform the checks is really quite hard in a lot of areas. I book a year in advance and in a month window of time have the choice of only one appointment sometimes.

Some Ha have the old leases which are much more strict regarding access. Those are being fazed out so it's those who have been in HA from the 80s in the same unit who have those leases. The tenants are 50+ with many moving to smaller properties with new leases.

Supermum, absolutely. HMO licensing is a marathon. We were mad to take it on, and ironically only did so because we have lovely tenants in a pretty typical Victorian bow fronted street property, and did not want to be forced to evict them.

Obachan - I posted above the subsection of a statute which shows that landlords do in fact have the right to enter the property for repairs or assessment of repairs on 24 hours notice. Common law doesn’t overrule that statute (or any other) I am afraid. Also common law is made up of and evidenced by case law.

I have posted the law and evidence for it. If you have any evidence (case law or statute is evidence of the law, not a blog that you don’t understand) for that not being the law, please post it or forever hold your peace!

I never said at any point I was a landlord either.

Also, today where no many couples are not married it's grey if it's one household or two. If the council have the mother as single then it's a HMO. Not to benefit bash but I've been caught by this multiple times. It's much more common than anyone realizes that an unmarried couple live together as housemates on paper.

No should say so.

Superman, Greenwich can fine £30,000 plus a year's rent, with fines resulting from a prosecution on top. By February only 2.6% of their properties were apparently licensed. Given they have access to the information about whether two people are living as flatmates, rather than the couple they appear to be, there is huge scope for them to make lots of money.

What gets me is that from the autumn they will also require me to get full planning permission each time I change from renting to sharers to a family and vice versa. That and the cost of licensing at £377 per room, before the costs of the many instpections, have me wondering wheter it is worth it. One arsy tenant and I'm out.

This is why I am including the status of the housing in my lease. If they are telling the benefits people they aren't a couple but telling me they are I am left completely exposed to astronomical fines which are more than the rent for a year. There are no insurance products for this and it's no use holding tenants liable as they don't have the assets to cover the fine.

The whole goal of the HMO legislation is to force small time tenants out. I have over 20 rental units now held in trust with a company owned by me performing the management of the properties. As I build more homes in the next 2-3 years I expect to have 50 rental units. It was a case of go big or go home for me.

and the posters who are defending tenants are clearly PITA tenants who are probably nightmares for their LLs.

Yeah those pesky tenants, knowing their actual rights and not letting scumbag landlords bully them for their own needs. How dare they, right?

BTW to anyone lurking, the LL's here are wrong, they know they are wrong, but they don't care.
Want2B, you travel over from the US to be there when all of your tenants need visits do you? And do all of this along with your mega important finance job? Nice try, trip trap.

I think you mean Landlords, not tenants. Forcing small tenants out would be sizeism.

Its curious though. I am not sure that large landlords are always better than small ones. I am certainly confident that I am more experienced and more responsive than many staff in letting agencies.

However the orthodoxy prevails, as evidenced by this thread, that small landlords are evil. My favourite was a friend who lapsed into a Corbyn type rant about the evils of landlords, then six months later contacted me for advice on whether she should keep a property she had inherited and let it out. (No! It is real work often with low returns and quite a lot of stress, not just sitting there counting rent.)

Some landlords are fantastic. The landlords on here aren't being told they are awful because they are landlords, they are being told they are awful because they are awful landlords.

My landlord would never dream of trying to come in to my home without permission, and when I used to be a landlord neither would I. It's called being a normal human being that understands both common courtesy and the law.

Actually yes I do. I fly home every month to take my dad to medical appointments anyway. I fly home Wednesday night if I can't fit everything in on the Friday. Technology is wonderful enabling me to work remotely.

needmoresleep I could do with borrowing your username! Yes LLs not tenants! The government has been very clear that their goal is to force small time LLs out of the market through onerous legislation and removal of tax breaks.

"they are being told they are awful because they are awful landlords."

huh. What gives you the right to say that. And claim to be a normal human being that understands both common courtesy and the law. Oddly slagging off people you dont know and making judgements about them does not suggest you are.

At what point have I or any of the other landlords said they go into properties without permission. All we are saying is that LLs have legal obligations which require them to enter properties and various constraints in terms of availability of trades. Various posters suggest that tenants have no duty to consider things from a LLs perspective. Seemingly because of a simplistic view, that tenants are good and landlords are, as you say, awful.