PDA

View Full Version : Tenant Refusing Access



madjohn
02-02-2007, 13:34 PM
Hi there,
I have a tenant leaving a property of mine in a couple of weeks but every other week he works nights.

He is refusing to allow me to arrange any viewings in the daytime between 10am and 6pm. Is this allowed?

Although I have it in his contract to allow him "to have quiet enjoyment of the Property without interruption by the Landlord or his Agent" it also states in the same contract:

Within the last two months of the tenancy to permit the Landlord or any person authorised by the Landlord or the Landlord's Agent at reasonable hours in the daytime to enter and view the property with prospective tenants or purchasers.

...although I always wait until the last 4 weeks or so - which I have this time round too.

It's Saturday tomorrow and the weekend is usually good for viewings, but this is also affected.
Can I 'demand' access if the hour is resonable e.g. 4pm?

Thanks all! :)
Mj

Worldlife
02-02-2007, 14:57 PM
<snip>

Although I have it in his contract to allow him "to have quiet enjoyment of the Property without interruption by the Landlord or his Agent" <snip>

Can I 'demand' access if the hour is resonable e.g. 4pm?

Mj

To demand access would contravene your legal responsibilities underwritten in the tenancy agreement.

Terms of the tenancy that negate that right might be regarded as unfair terms.

Viewings arrangements for prospective new tenants is entirely at the discretion and goodwill of the tenant

madjohn
02-02-2007, 15:03 PM
Hi Worldlife,
Thanks for the reply.

When I say 'demand' I didn't mean enforce I just meant that there should be some resaonable negotiation between each party and that if he refuses entry outright then he is in breach of contract, no?

Otherwise what you are saying is that anyone who lets a propety would simply be refused entrance for the contract term unless there is an emergency - regardless of what the contact says?

That's not right, is it? There are other maintenance & inspection issues to be enforced whether the tenant likes it or not.

Am I being unreasonable?

Poppy
02-02-2007, 15:07 PM
Otherwise what you are saying is that anyone who lets a propety would simply be refused entrance for the contract term unless there is an emergency - regardless of what the contact says?
That's exactly what we're saying. You need to negotiate with your tenant. If they say no, accept that humbly.

Am I being unreasonable?
Yes potentially. Be careful you could breach harassment laws if you insist. Harassment laws and other related landlord and tenant laws supersede many spurious clauses in Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements.

pippay
02-02-2007, 15:13 PM
I think you need to negotiate with your tenant for access when he's working days as I can see that if he was working nights he wouldn't want disturbing during the day. Perhaps ask him to come up with some suggestions as to when he can facilitate these viewings?


Hi Worldlife,
Thanks for the reply.

When I say 'demand' I didn't mean enforce I just meant that there should be some resaonable negotiation between each party and that if he refuses entry outright then he is in breach of contract, no? No, he will not be in breach as he has a common law right to refuse access if he wants.

Otherwise what you are saying is that anyone who lets a propety would simply be refused entrance for the contract term unless there is an emergency - regardless of what the contact says? Correct

That's not right, is it? There are other maintenance & inspection issues to be enforced whether the tenant likes it or not. You CANNOT enforce these unless it is an emergency - and I mean a real emergency ! The tenant can still refuse for whatever reason.
Am I being unreasonable?

madjohn
02-02-2007, 15:33 PM
Hi Poppy & Pippay!

Crikey!!

This has now left me a bit confused, tho:

I have just spoken to a lady from the Council Housing Advisory Service and she said that as long as I give resaonable notice then I am not being unfair or harassing.

As in the OFT document "Unfair Tenancy Terms" (http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/36623FC6-E9BC-4D9A-B4BF-39191E06F802/0/oft381.pdf)

"Other terms may be unfiar if:

...it allows the landlord to enter the
premises without giving you
reasonable notice, and in most
cases written notice, except in an
emergency;"


Well, does this not mean that if I give a fair amount of notice (and I do, 24 hours exactly, or more - soon to be 48 hours after this! lol) he can still say no?

I know you (all) have basically all said "no!" to this, that I still cannot enter the house - but if that's the case why does the law not expicitly say so (or does it?) and if it does, then why print the above quote in a tenancy guide!? The law would make that statement redundant.
Otherwise the above document in itself would suggest that I should be granted access so long as I am - that word again - reasonable.


Negotiation:
Believe me, I have also asked for suggestions from the tenant to work around this but none have been given.
In fact, as soon as he told me he was working nights, I suggested to him that I would try to arrange viewings for the evening and late afternoon. He made no counter 'offer'.
When I told the Housing Authority this, they said that along with the 24 hours notice I was being reasonable (and I not back up appointments in writing to prove so) and "4pm is not an unreasonable time to request visiting even if the person is on nights".

Why would they give me this advice if, in fact, I have no access rights at all..? :confused:

Thanks for your generous replies! (smiley)

pippay
02-02-2007, 15:51 PM
Believe me, you are barking up the wrong tree if you believe you have any right of access at all except in an emergency.

I personally know of a VERY large managing agent, who consistently sent round workmen after being told no and although the tenant let them in, the managing agent have been reported to the police for harassment. the case is on-going.


Hi Poppy & Pippay!

Crikey!!

This has now left me a bit confused, tho:

I have just spoken to a lady from the Council Housing Advisory Service and she said that as long as I give resaonable notice then I am not being unfair or harassing. If you turn up and expect entry or let yourself in without his express permission and particularly after he has said no, then it could very well be deemed harassment, if it happens twice. Even so, he could in any event sue you for being in breach of contract by nenying him common law right to quiet enjoyment

As in the OFT document "Unfair Tenancy Terms" (http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/36623FC6-E9BC-4D9A-B4BF-39191E06F802/0/oft381.pdf)

"Other terms may be unfiar if:

...it allows the landlord to enter the
premises without giving you
reasonable notice, and in most
cases written notice, except in an
emergency;"


Well, does this not mean that if I give a fair amount of notice (and I do, 24 hours exactly, or more - soon to be 48 hours after this! lol) he can still say no? Yes he can still say NO and there will be NOTHINg you can do about it.
I know you (all) have basically all said "no!" to this, that I still cannot enter the house - but if that's the case why does the law not expicitly say so It is the tenant's right under common law to have quiet enjoyment so it may not be written down any where but, trust me, it exists !!!

(or does it?) and if it does, then why print the above quote in a tenancy guide!? Because it gives the tenant notice that you will have the right to request it .. whether he grants that request or not is up to him.

The law would make that statement redundant.

Otherwise the above document in itself would suggest that I should be granted access so long as I am - that word again - reasonable.


Negotiation:
Believe me, I have also asked for suggestions from the tenant to work around this but none have been given.
In fact, as soon as he told me he was working nights, I suggested to him that I would try to arrange viewings for the evening and late afternoon. He made no counter 'offer'.
When I told the Housing Authority this, they said that along with the 24 hours notice I was being reasonable (and I not back up appointments in writing to prove so) and "4pm is not an unreasonable time to request visiting even if the person is on nights".

Why would they give me this advice if, in fact, I have no access rights at all..? :confused: If the tenant says no, there is nothing you can do. They are giving you advice on the basis of giving reasonable notice and the tenant agreeing.
Thanks for your generous replies! (smiley)

Bel
02-02-2007, 15:51 PM
You do have rights; but you cannot practically enforce them.

1) The LL/agent cannot enter legally without permission, even if they give 24hrs written notice. They must have permission granted. There is quite a lot of stuff on the forum about this.

2) However, unreasonably withholding consent to enter is a breach of the AST by tenant. He has broken the agreement . But however ‘wrong’ the tenant is about refusing all access, there is not much one can practically do in your case. Your only ‘weapon’ is to show him the error of his ways ( he has broken the agreement), and suggest that you would not be able to give him a glowing reference in future.

Poppy
02-02-2007, 15:52 PM
OK, you go barging in and see what action your tenant can take against you using the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. It's not our look out! However landlords who do that, give other law-abiding landlords a very unwelcome bad name.

Why would they give me this advice if, in fact, I have no access rights at all..?
You should be aware that individuals who front an organisation and "advise" you may be:

wrong
not tell the whole truth
give you an answer off the top of their head
mischievous

Even solicitors can be wrong. Letting/managing agents (too) often give dodgy advice. Plenty of examples on these forums. :rolleyes:

Reasonable access does not mean that you as a landlord can insist. Period.

You say that the tenant will vacate in a short while. You will have to wait until then to show the property to prospective tenants if the existing tenant continues to refuse access.

If you consider yourself to be a professional landlord, then you should use due diligence to learn about your rights and your tenants' rights.

Jeesh!

madjohn
02-02-2007, 16:29 PM
Uh...? What did I say wrong...!?

Pippay:
Why are you so angry?
I am sorry that I have frustrated you!
You seem miffed that you have had to repeat yourself on some of the things that you have already (kindly) covered, rather than answering the questions I have asked on the obviously conflicting advice I am getting from the other good people on this forum to that of the Housing Advisory Unit.

Poppy:
It's no one's look out..!
I wasn't going to go "barging in" at any point. In fact I was never arguing the point that I have a right to do so - I am here on this forum asking these questions so that I don't do exactly that or indeed anything outside the law of the land.

I agree that the advice I have been given from the Housing Advisory Unit may be incorrect, but since it is the Council and not an organisation, where else am I supposed to go for official advice...?

Please note: All my posts have simply been me trying to convey my confusion on conflicting advice and not me tyring to contradict the answers this forum has provided. So why are some people so short tempered?
Please don't reply to me as though I have contempt for you as if I did I wouldn't be here in the first place.
Please read my previous replies with the knowledge that I just want some help on conflicting advice. I have not dismissed your comments, just queried them. Isn't that what happens on a forum?
I did try to put more smiley faces in this thread but this forum only allows one per msg.

Bel:
That's a bit clearer and sound advice. Since, on top of all that has been said, it makes sense and nothing else does, I shall follow it.

Yet it remains, the law and advice on this is vague at best - although I shouldn't be surprised at that. lol :cool:

Thank you all. Much appreciated.

madjohn
02-02-2007, 16:32 PM
OK, you go barging in and see what action your tenant can take against you using the Protection from Eviction Act 1972. It's not our look out! However landlords who do that, give other law-abiding landlords a very unwelcome bad name.

....

If you consider yourself to be a professional landlord, then you should use due diligence to learn about your rights and your tenants' rights.

Jeesh!

I just read your post over and over again and: I think you have completely mis-read the tone of my posts. There is simply no need for this attitude.

Poppy
02-02-2007, 16:38 PM
Sorry, but occasionally there are people who ask a question on these forums, receive the correct answer for free and then want a different answer to suit their purpose. Those people are considered cheeky.

I am glad that you now accept our consistent answer.

By all means research further on different websites and look at and learn the applicable laws. I am always learning. Always.

pippay
02-02-2007, 16:39 PM
I'm not angry at all. I think you are being overly sensitive.

I cannot comment on why you have been given conflicting advice so consequently I didn't answer.

I was merely reinforcing my previous post to ensure you fully understood the possible consequences if you undertook a particular course of action that could be deemed to be criminally illegal.

If you want independent advice try Shelter. They will, I am sure, give you their legalopinion from the point of view of tenants' rights, as well as Landlords


Uh...? What did I say wrong...!?

Pippay:
Why are you so angry?
I am sorry that I have frustrated you!
You seem miffed that you have had to repeat yourself on some of the things that you have already (kindly) covered, rather than answering the questions I have asked on the obviously conflicting advice I am getting from the other good people on this forum to that of the Housing Advisory Unit.

Poppy:
It's no one's look out..!
I wasn't going to go "barging in" at any point. In fact I was never arguing the point that I have a right to do so - I am here on this forum asking these questions so that I don't do exactly that or indeed anything outside the law of the land.

I agree that the advice I have been given from the Housing Advisory Unit may be incorrect, but since it is the Council and not an organisation, where else am I supposed to go for official advice...?

Please note: All my posts have simply been me trying to convey my confusion on conflicting advice and not me tyring to contradict the answers this forum has provided. So why are some people so short tempered?
Please don't reply to me as though I have contempt for you as if I did I wouldn't be here in the first place.
Please read my previous replies with the knowledge that I just want some help on conflicting advice. I have not dismissed your comments, just queried them. Isn't that what happens on a forum?
I did try to put more smiley faces in this thread but this forum only allows one per msg.

Bel:
That's a bit clearer and sound advice. Since, on top of all that has been said, it makes sense and nothing else does, I shall follow it.

Yet it remains, the law and advice on this is vague at best - although I shouldn't be surprised at that. lol :cool:

Thank you all. Much appreciated.

madjohn
02-02-2007, 17:43 PM
Phew! lol

My first post and I thought I was on the verge of being the Newbie that annoys!

Thanks Pippay and Poppy. I do and will accept the law as it is (how foolish would I be to ignore any advice - epsecially when I asked for it! lol). I'm now more pleased that you see that I'm not trying to say anyone here is wrong.

Again, your (collective) input is only valuable to me - I was just confused at the conflicting sources/responses. Oh well, we're all ok now, I hope. :)

Regards to all and here's to the next tenant! Hehee!

Mrs Dingle
02-02-2007, 23:57 PM
I understand that you need to give a tenant 48 hours notice for access.If you have a modern lease then this allows for you to show a new tenant around within the last month.It would be reasonable to assume that if you have given your tenant notice that you will wish to enter a a set time that this is NOT unreasonable.It is your property.I am not a qualified person to give you advise and so you must take my advise as it stands.Yours Mrs Dingle

pippay
03-02-2007, 00:03 AM
You are under a misconception Mrs D. Whatever it says in the lease, modern or otherwise, you cannot force a tenant to grant you access, with or without reasonable notice (unless in an emergency) and certainly not for showing round new potential purchasers/tenants.



I understand that you need to give a tenant 48 hours notice for access.If you have a modern lease then this allows for you to show a new tenant around within the last month.It would be reasonable to assume that if you have given your tenant notice that you will wish to enter a a set time that this is NOT unreasonable.It is your property.I am not a qualified person to give you advise and so you must take my advise as it stands.Yours Mrs Dingle

islandgirl
03-02-2007, 10:14 AM
I can confirm categorically that Pippay etc are correct - you do not have the right of entry if the tenant refuses. Full stop. This was top flight legal advice I received just a few months ago. You have to stay away or potentially be accused of harrassment. Perhaps another voice will help convince everyone?!

Beeber
03-02-2007, 12:32 PM
The Shelter website is an excellent source of information for tenants about their rights (and therefore by default, of the responsibilities of the landlord). It's a clearly written advice site.

It makes clear to tenants that they should cooperate with access requests for repairs.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-4074.cfm#wipLive-13041-4

However, it also notifies tenants that the following instances could be classed as harassment

- visiting your home regularly without warning, especially late at night
- sending builders round without notice
- entering your home when you are not there, without your permission

This behaviour may be intended to make you leave your home without your landlord having to follow the proper legal procedures, or it may be for other reasons. Harassment can be very distressing and might make you feel as though you have no choice other than to move out. This is not the case - harassment is in fact a serious criminal offence.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-7352.cfm

And

Is the landlord coming round to inspect the property too often?
Your landlord can come into your home to inspect the property only at a time that is convenient to you, and s/he should give you reasonable notice. Reasonable notice shouldn't be less than 24 hours unless it's an emergency.

Your landlord should not need to come round very often to inspect the property. If s/he is coming more often than you would like, or letting her/himself in without your permission, it could be considered harassment. You could try to negotiate with your landlord to agree how often it is acceptable to have the property inspected. Your landlord does not have an automatic right to have a key to your home unless your tenancy agreement says that this is the case.

I think the following should be read to apply to viewings by prospective tenants as well as buyers of a property

Is your landlord selling the property?
In some cases your landlord may be trying to sell the property and bringing people round to view your home at times which are inconvenient to you. Unless you have agreed clearly in advance, your landlord does not have the right to show people around your home without your permission. If you prefer not to allow this, your landlord will have to wait until s/he has evicted you using the proper eviction procedures before showing potential buyers around.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-7354.cfm

So on the one hand it does urge tenants to cooperate with requests for access for inspection and repairs but on the other they make it clear that landlords cannot access a property without their permission and that if they do, it can be classed as harassment, a serious offence which can lead to prosecution.

Dave77
03-02-2007, 13:46 PM
After reading this entire thread, i do think that john has received some unfair comments. It is clear to me that the advice that has been given to him within this thread, is conflicting with other advice he has been given. He is clearly trying to establish his rights to access. He actually sounds like a very reasonable person just trying to work out the law as regards to this before he goes barging in on anyone, which by the way, did not sound like what he was intending to do.

For the record, although I believe the advice given in this forum to be correct (as I have received great advice from Poppy before), I also understood that a landlord needed to give at least 24 hours notice in the last two months to be granted right of entry. It surely cannot be morally or legally correct for a landlord to suffer financial loss resulting from a tenant simply refusing the landlord any right of entry whatsoever, especially when the landlord is trying to find replacement tenants to tie-in with the departure of the existing one(s).

According to the above information however, the landlord has no right to enter his own property at all. Completely amazed!

Ericthelobster
03-02-2007, 13:58 PM
It surely cannot be morally or legally correct for a landlord to suffer financial loss resulting from a tenant simply refusing the landlord any right of entry whatsoeverYou'd think so, but it is. Welcome to the wonderful world of landlording.

madjohn
04-02-2007, 02:36 AM
According to the above information however, the landlord has no right to enter his own property at all. Completely amazed!

Indeed was I on hearing this! :)
Ahh well! If that's the case, then so be it...

And thanks, Dave: spot on. And great research, Beeber!
Mucho

Worldlife
04-02-2007, 09:54 AM
Having regard to all he should have learned from this thread perhaps madjohn should take up with the Council the fact that he may have been given incorrect or incomplete advice.

jeffrey
04-02-2007, 16:20 PM
Re Poppy's first post on 2 February: it's the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

lorenzo
04-02-2007, 17:18 PM
Perhaps in coming to grips with this concept, consideration of what a lease actually is might be in order. From reference.com (Pertinent points in red):


Leasing of real property

(See rental agreement and leasehold estate for more detail.)

There are different types of ownership for land but, in common law states, the most common form is the fee simple absolute, where the legal term fee has the old meaning of real property, i.e. real estate. An owner of the fee simple holds all the rights and privileges to that property and, subject to the laws, codes, rules and regulations of the local law, can sell or by contract or grant, permit another to have possession and control of the property through a lease or tenancy agreement. For this purpose, the owner is called the lessor or landlord, and the other person is called the lessee or tenant, and the rights to possess and control the land are exchanged for some payment (called consideration in legal English), usually a monthly rent. Although leases can be oral agreements that are periodic, i.e. extended indefinitely and automatically, written leases should always define the period of time covered by the lease. In the 1930s, the British government introduced infinite leases, only to remove the power to create these in the early 1990s. A lease may be:

* a fixed-term agreement, in other words one of these two:

o for a specified period of time (the "term"), and end when the term expires;
o conditional, i.e. last until some specified event occurs, such as the death of a specified individual; or
* a periodic agreement, in other words renewed automatically

o usually on a monthly or weekly basis
o at will, i.e. last only as long as the parties wish it to, and be terminated without penalty by either party.

Because ownership is retained by the lessor, he or she always has the better right to enforce all the contractual terms and conditions affecting the use of the land. Normally, the contract will be express (i.e. set out in full and, hopefully, plain language), but where a contract is silent or ambiguous, terms can be implied by a court where this would make commercial sense of the transaction between the parties. One important right that may or may not be allowed the lessee, is the ability to create a sublease or to assign the lease, i.e. to transfer control to a third party. Hence, the builder of an office block may create a lease of the whole in favour of a management company that then finds tenants for the individual units and gives them control.

Under English Law, a written lease should have three essential characteristics:

1. A Fixed Term
2. At a Rent
3. Exclusive Possession

However, according to Astalt v Arnorld, a rent is not essential but will help to contribute towards finding a lease. In addition Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body[1992] seems to allow for an implied Periodic Tenancy where a lack of a'Fixed term' has make the original lease void.

This seems to say that many of the rights of ownership are conferred upon the lessee whilst in legal possession of the property. Apparently this includes the right to refuse entry to the owner in all excepts the most extreme circumstance, as discussed.

This makes complete sense, even if unpalatable to the owner. Whether the current rent is fair recompense for this is a matter for another thread.

My $0.02

jeffrey
04-02-2007, 18:17 PM
Infinite leases, eh? Introduced in 1930s and abolished in 1990s? News to me, and probably a source material error- not "two centsible".

madjohn
04-02-2007, 23:10 PM
Having regard to all he should have learned from this thread perhaps madjohn should take up with the Council the fact that he may have been given incorrect or incomplete advice.

Thant's a good point. I think I will.

lorenzo
05-02-2007, 02:17 AM
Infinite leases, eh? Introduced in 1930s and abolished in 1990s? News to me, and probably a source material error- not "two centsible".
Noted. But irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

honkonjin_hk
14-11-2008, 15:48 PM
I was searching on internet re. tenant's right of refusing viewings and I came across this thread of messages.

My landlord is selling the house so we were given notice around 2 months ago. We have been very flexible with all the viewing requests. They have had around 15 viewings so far and we have only said no once because it was a very inconvenient day which was a Saturday.

We are moving out this weekend so we said no to the viewing request for this weekend. The agent went on asking about the following weekend. We explained that we were doing the move ourselves, it might not be feasible to have a viewing on the following weekend but we would let them know nearer the time.

The agent then told the landlord and my partner had a message left on his answer by the landlord saying that he had checked with the letting agent, by refusing two weekends in a row, we would be breaching the contract so he had gone ahead arranging the viewing this weekend (without our consent!!)

I was quite convinced that we had all the rights to refuse any viewing but to know where we stand, I rang the Shelter helpline. I was confirmed that "we would be breaching the contract as refusing viewings on two weekends in a row would be considered as "unreasonable""

This could be music to landlords' ears. However as a tenant, I feel helpless as "reasonableness" is subjective!! I feel it's "reasonable" for us to say NO for 2 weekends as we can foresee it will be very busy and manic for us. However, my landlord sees this as "unreasonable" as it stops potential buyers viewing the house at a convenient time.

I do hope there is more help available for tenants. When I rang up the local council housing officer re. the threat from my crafty landlord, all i was told was "there's nothing you can do".

mind the gap
14-11-2008, 17:32 PM
. It surely cannot be morally or legally correct for a landlord to suffer financial loss resulting from a tenant simply refusing the landlord any right of entry whatsoever, especially when the landlord is trying to find replacement tenants to tie-in with the departure of the existing one(s).

According to the above information however, the landlord has no right to enter his own property at all. Completely amazed!

As a landlord you do not have a legal or a moral right to expect to be able to draw rent from your property every day for the duration of your ownership of it. You must expect some void periods in which you show new tenants rounds because the old ones don't want you tramping round their home while they are still in it. That's their prerogative.

Why should your need to make money overrule their right to the quiet enjoyment of their home? If they do agree to viewings while they are still in residence, count it as a bonus, not a right.

Your attitude smacks just a little of arrogance, I'm afraid.

lorenzo
14-11-2008, 18:13 PM
I was quite convinced that we had all the rights to refuse any viewing but to know where we stand, I rang the Shelter helpline. I was confirmed that "we would be breaching the contract as refusing viewings on two weekends in a row would be considered as "unreasonable""

This could be music to landlords' ears. However as a tenant, I feel helpless as "reasonableness" is subjective!! I feel it's "reasonable" for us to say NO for 2 weekends as we can foresee it will be very busy and manic for us. However, my landlord sees this as "unreasonable" as it stops potential buyers viewing the house at a convenient time.

I do hope there is more help available for tenants. When I rang up the local council housing officer re. the threat from my crafty landlord, all i was told was "there's nothing you can do".

Breaching the contract, eh?

So I guess they'll just have to evict you then. http://i34.tinypic.com/29nusee.jpg

You've been reasonable. Tell them to **** off.

Imp
14-11-2008, 18:28 PM
On a slightly more pragmatic level, do you really think you will re-let the property if, when showing prospective tenants around, you show them the bedroom only to find your current tenant tucked up in bed asleep because he is working shifts. While the property may be lovely, I would be put off by a landlord who thinks that these actions are okay.

Similarly, if you do show off the property while a tenant is still in situ, you can't expect them to tidy up to show off the property to its best,so you may not let it anyway.

Ericthelobster
14-11-2008, 18:51 PM
II was quite convinced that we had all the rights to refuse any viewing but to know where we stand, I rang the Shelter helpline. I was confirmed that "we would be breaching the contract as refusing viewings on two weekends in a row would be considered as "unreasonable"".That does seem a very strange response from Shelter. Particularly since it's not as if you've otherwise blocked viewings.

I should tell them that if they are going to get arsey and attempt to have unauthorised viewings you'll withdraw cooperation and refuse them altogether. Even change the locks until you leave. As Lorenzo says, what's the worse they can do, threaten to evict you? Think they've already played that card...

jeffrey
16-11-2008, 19:35 PM
I was searching on internet re. tenant's right of refusing viewings and I came across this thread of messages.
Is your query associated with a property in England & Wales? Your screen-name suggests Hong Kong!