PDA

View Full Version : HELP - Tenant being harassed by LL



pelar
28-04-2008, 19:57 PM
Hi,
We entered into an AST on a house in May 2006 for 6 mnths. The LL regularly has a "representative" call on her behalf, without warning and on any day it suits her to visit. Just to check up on us - that house is tidy, garden in good order etc.

We were previously on good terms with the LL but after an "inspection visit" when she was last in the UK in March she has sent us an 8 page letter with a list of conditions she wants fulfilled by 1st May 2008. The demands includesuch things as replacement of a tree which was blown over and uprooted in severe gales; removal of some rubble left after a road repair was carried out and is at the edge of her garden; the wheelie bin moved to a specific spot chosen by her;to regularly clean the garage door; to have the chimneys swept (at our cost). These are just a few in a long list. To add to it the house is on the market and she expects us to be available for viewings whenever required. She threatens to serve notice to quit if we do not comply with these and various other petty demands by 1 May.
This all sounds so petty and idiotic but is causing a big headache, having these constant phone calls and visits from her friend.
Any advice? (We are looking for somewhere else but no luck yet)
Thanks in advance

Colincbayley
28-04-2008, 20:01 PM
Seems pretty clear that she is asking for all this so that she can sell the house!
You do not have to allow viewings to possible buyers if you do not want to and you do not have the allow the agent or her friend into the property for their inspections.

You are entitled to quite enjoyment of the property, yes the LL owns the property but it is still your home. You may wish to remind your LL of this fact.

If you are already looking for a new home, then I would carry on doing just that, ignor the LL and her friend and just move on.

pelar
29-04-2008, 14:55 PM
for your response, but are you SURE we don't have to allow the LL or her "representative" access to the house for inspections? I was under the impression that the LL was entitled to a certain number of inspections per year (2?) and/or access to property as long as 24 hrs notice is given.

islandgirl
29-04-2008, 15:03 PM
No you DO NOT have to allow access. LL is not entitled to enter if you refuse no matter how much notice is given as colinc says.

Colincbayley
29-04-2008, 15:03 PM
for your response, but are you SURE we don't have to allow the LL or her "representative" access to the house for inspections? I was under the impression that the LL was entitled to a certain number of inspections per year (2?) and/or access to property as long as 24 hrs notice is given.

Yes I'm sure.

The only way a LL could enforce any such terms within an AST ( if a tenant refuses access ) is to take the tenant to court, at which time you can claim that it is an unfair term, which it is.

Tell them to poke it.

agent46
29-04-2008, 15:08 PM
which it is.



At the risk of you accusing me of trying to provoke an argument......"why and on whose authority is it an 'unfair term' for the LL to have the benefit of a covenant allowing twice yearly inspections on 24hrs notice?"

jeffrey
29-04-2008, 15:09 PM
...unless s.11(6) of LTA 1985 applies. L does have an automatic right of access (on 24 hrs. notice and at a reasonable time. except in emergency) to enter premises and view them. This applies to every lease in which a s.11 repairing covenant is implies, and- as it's stated in an Act of Parliament- T cannot object nor refuse access.

Colincbayley
29-04-2008, 15:11 PM
At the risk of you accusing me of trying to provoke an argument......"why and on whose authority is it an 'unfair term' for the LL to have the benefit of a covenant allowing twice yearly inspections on 24hrs notice?"

It is not an unfair term UNLESS a court of law says so.

Hence, if the tenant advises the LL that they can not have access, the LL could take the tenant to court for breach of contract, the tenant can then refer the court to the OFT guidelines on unfair contract terms and the court would then rule on the matter.

Colincbayley
29-04-2008, 15:14 PM
At the risk of you accusing me of trying to provoke an argument......

Isn't that exactly what you are again trying to do with this out of hand statement. ( Think I will stick you on my ignore list )

attilathelandlord
29-04-2008, 15:15 PM
I think Agent46 hasn't had his/her afternoon drinkie poo yet and is getting antsy.

Colincbayley
29-04-2008, 15:16 PM
I think Agent46 hasn't had his/her afternoon drinkie poo yet and is getting antsy.

Is it your round then Attila ? :p

agent46
29-04-2008, 15:16 PM
It is not an unfair term UNLESS a court of law says so.

Hence, if the tenant advises the LL that they can not have access, the LL could take the tenant to court for breach of contract, the tenant can then refer the court to the OFT guidelines on unfair contract terms and the court would then rule on the matter.

Yes, thank you. I'm aware of how the civil justice system works.

So what you actually mean is "in my opinion it may be an unfair term" rather than "it is an unfair term", which is what you originally wrote.



A bit less declaration and a lot more explanation is required in some posts methinks ;)

Colincbayley
29-04-2008, 15:18 PM
So what you actually mean is "in my opinion it may be an unfair term" rather than "it is an unfair term", which is what you originally wrote.


Not my opinion at all, it is the view of the OFT, which only a court could enforce.

But of course you would be aware of that wouldn't you.

attilathelandlord
29-04-2008, 15:21 PM
A large G&T (double!) please.

I wouldn't worry about Agent46 too much he'll get bored and drift away sooner or later, they all do.

Colincbayley
29-04-2008, 15:24 PM
A large G&T (double!) please.

I wouldn't worry about Agent46 too much he'll get bored and drift away sooner or later, they all do. I know what you mean, but there is very little I worry about, other than not getting me dinner at night!

Little bit early in the day for a G&T if you ask me. :p

attilathelandlord
29-04-2008, 15:28 PM
It's never too early for a G&T!

agent46
29-04-2008, 15:35 PM
Not my opinion at all, it is the view of the OFT, which only a court could enforce.

But of course you would be aware of that wouldn't you.

It may well be the view of the OFT, and they may have an incredibly high regard for themselves, but as yet they have not been given the power to make law.

The courts are entitled to (and often do) refuse to follow their guidance. The court is simply required to, IIRC, "take it into account" and once they've taken it into account (which simply means reading it and then raising a quizzical judicial eyebrow), they can get on with doing what they have always done which is applying the law with a dash of common sense.

Just out of interest - I haven't got the cream book here with me - is there OFT guidance specifically relating to "inspection clauses"?

You have a bit of a habit of making very grand declarative statements which turn out on closer inspection to rather less unequivocal than they first seemed.

jeffrey
29-04-2008, 15:35 PM
Not my opinion at all, it is the view of the OFT, which only a court could enforce.

But of course you would be aware of that wouldn't you.

Section 11(6)'s implied term cannot be 'unfair', by definition.

pelar
29-04-2008, 15:46 PM
I didn't mean to start a war with this question. I don't MIND giving the LL access twice a year, it's her property and she has a right to see I'm taking good care of it (which I am). BUT, she called at the house on 20th March, had a rep (friend of hers) call on 1/4, 10/4, 28/4 and she now wants to call again on Saturday 2 May. I've had a gutfull of them both and just wanted to know if legally, I could refuse access on this occasion?
Also the house was part-furnished when I rented it but with no inventory. She now mentions items of furniture I've never even seen, saying she hopes they're "safe". I'm at a loss with this woman. I really am.

jeffrey
29-04-2008, 15:59 PM
Yes, this frequency of visitations is clearly unreasonable and unwarranted.
If there's no inventory, what evidence does L possess re the mythical items of furniture?

pelar
29-04-2008, 16:19 PM
My feelings exactly but I don't want to be unfair (despite her psychotic tendencies!) so I shall refuse an inspection on this occasion. I know she will issue a notice to quit (she said she'd do this if I didn't comply with ALL the requests in the very long-winded letter she sent to me on 28/3, inspection being ONE of the requests). thanks for your advice

Shawnus
29-04-2008, 16:29 PM
Good luck with that. If you know the storm will come at least bring it on your terms...sounds like she is gearing up for it anyway with this mystical furniture trick

Ericthelobster
29-04-2008, 16:33 PM
I wouldn't worry about Agent46 too much he'll get bored and drift away sooner or later, they all do.Well I hope he doesn't - unlike most of the "they" to whom you refer (and to whom good riddance), as far as I can see Agent46 knows his stuff and brings a welcome fresh perspective to this forum. In particular he has challenged some of the oft-cited chestnuts which seem to have become 'gospel' here, when in fact they may be no more than hearsay traceable back to specific individuals. Yesterday's spat about S21s (probably) being a case in point.

attilathelandlord
29-04-2008, 16:38 PM
Don't get me wrong, I always enjoy information and a challening debate, what I object to is the dry drunk, personal nastiness that goes with it at times.

agent46
29-04-2008, 17:02 PM
Don't get me wrong, I always enjoy information and a challening debate, what I object to is the dry drunk, personal nastiness that goes with it at times.

Well perhaps if a certain person either apologised or came up with cogent reasoning to back up his remarks, then I would let the matter drop.....

Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all averse to having my advice questioned or even blown out of the water by a better argument - I am regularly handed my **** in a basket by one of m'learned friends and I think nothing of it.

What I do object to however, is someone trying to make a monkey out of me. If people want to get into a "who's the biggest smart****" competition, then that's fine by me because I'm more than capable of challenging for the all-in World Heavyweight Championship of that particular discipline if necessary. I'd prefer not to, but if the challenge is laid, then I'll respond.

attilathelandlord
29-04-2008, 17:21 PM
Res ipsa loquitur.

We're not here to to make monkeys out of anyone. We're here to discuss the finer points of legal aspects to letting.

No-one is required to back up anything they say. It's nice if they do, because then we can see where the argument is coming from.

You take the bits from this forum that are helpful and disregard the rest. It's not as if we really know the legal qualifications of anyone who posts on this board.

But all this ego crap is quite frankly, a waste of time.

It's a shame because I really like to get down to the legal nitty gritty and having been around lawyers for a long time now, I know very well that 3 lawyers gathered together in one place will give you at least 5 different opinions on one subject!

agent46
29-04-2008, 19:04 PM
We're here to discuss the finer points of legal aspects to letting.

No-one is required to back up anything they say. It's nice if they do, because then we can see where the argument is coming from.



And that's precisely the central plank of my argument. A discussion does not just involve 2 or more parties shouting "yes it is!", "no it isn't!" at each other. A discussion involves an exchange of views with supportng arguments which are,in turn, called into question by the other participants -this helps enlighten both the participants and the spectators (also known as dialectic reasoning), whereas in the former situation nobody learns anything apart from who has the loudest voice.

Of course it is nice when people provide supporting arguments - by rationalising their points, it shows that they actually understand why the positions they (frequently bombastically) put forward are correct. Any fool can gather knowledge and parrot it back at others, but true understanding of a subject is something completely different altogether.

attilathelandlord
30-04-2008, 08:39 AM
This is true, there are a lot of interesting legal arguments posted on this website which give pause for thought, but eventually, the advice here, from whoever posted it is worth exactly what we paid for it, i.e. nothing as most people, even if they go to the source material, won't know how to use it.

There is often a lot of case law also which may contradict.

I take this forum with a great deal of humour and a massive pinch of salt, but if I need any real legal advice that I have to rely on, I pay a qualified solicitor/barrister.

bagpuss
30-04-2008, 22:15 PM
I've noticed a lot of 'arguments' going on here over the last few weeks and I must say it's worried me. I needed advice when I first found this website and I got it from people who genuinely wanted to help and who seemed to know what they were talking about. Of course I doubled checked what I was told, but using their advice as a starting point, which was extremely helpful.

If this site degenerates into a name-calling free-for-all it will be very sad. It's happened on other forums of which I've been a member and it usually heralded the end of the site being of much interest or worth to anyone. I, for one, ended up walking away from them - metaphorically speaking.

I really, really hope it doesn't happen here too.

attilathelandlord
01-05-2008, 13:50 PM
Me too. I should imagine the Moderator will jump ony real nastiness tho.

jeffrey
01-05-2008, 13:53 PM
See http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=10884.

Mrs Jones
02-05-2008, 14:18 PM
Going back to the original query - I am amazed at this landlord's behaviour. I thought it was totally against the law to harrass a tenant in this way. One of my houses has a garage which is not let with the house. I use it for storage - and occasionally call at the house to collect any mail. Although they often invite me in, I always refuse as I would consider it an intrusion on their privacy for me to accept (and I wouldn't want them to think I am checking up on them without giving proper notice) - my managing agent visits on my behalf after giving appropriate notice etc. and I believe this is enough.