PDA

View Full Version : Tenants moving out, need access to flat



hanorac
04-08-2005, 12:54 PM
My tenants have beee great but its their first rental.
They want me to do my final check of the place 6 wekes before they leave and have their deposit cleared in their accounts 2 weeks prior to they leave.
Like that is going to happen!!!!!!

Anyway, I'm selling the flat, and have lined up an agent, only small issue is the tenants don't want the agent wandering around the place when they aren't there, this i guess would be fair enough but it's stopping me from getting the place on the market and as you all know time is money.

After reading the contract it says

To permit the landlord or the landlord's agent to enter and view the premises with prospective tenants purchasers or occupiers in the daytime and upon reasonable prior notice.

I've spent the last week waiting for a time convienent to both the agent and tenant and all I'd like is this to move on. In the past when we've rented we never had a problem letting the agent in etc.

dazalock
04-08-2005, 13:20 PM
YOu have no right to enter the premises without the tenants permission except in an emergency, search for posts on the subject. AND IMHO why should you, Im afraid you will have to lose a little bit of money, seeing as the tenants have been good tenants and paid you rent so you could realise a nice market gain on the property, why shouldnt they live there iin quite enjoyment for the rest of the tenancy.

MrShed
04-08-2005, 21:57 PM
Wickerman, neither here nor there im afraid, because daza is 100% correct! If the tenants dont want you to show people round at a specific time, you cannot show them round, thats it. Do it if you want, but you risk massive damages.

With regards the deposit, you obviously do not have to do a check with them 6 weeks prior, but if you have time, it would be prudent to do so, gives them time to sort out anything prior to end of tenancy. It would also be prudent, but again not mandatory, to have a final check with them on or after the last day of the tenancy.

Needless to say, do NOT give them the deposit back prior to the end of the tenancy....however this request would very much worry me. Be aware of the possibility of them not paying the last months rent and telling you to take them out of the deposit! This request seems to me to almost guarantee this eventuality. How much is the deposit, 1 months rent? And do you have a term in your AST stating deposit to be used ONLY for dilapidations?

*edit* sorry missed that you said it was first rental...less likely then, they are probably just not aware of procedure. However, this doesnt mean forget about this possibility!

MrShed
04-08-2005, 22:01 PM
And in fact, wickerman, can you state where this £1000 "loss" has come from?? First of all, that would be one expensive rent for a flat :| of course depends where it is!

More to the point, however, you are receiving the exact same rent regardless of when it sells.

Example A) Cannot market flat until start of July due to tenants leaving end of june, sale completed by start of august

Example B) Tenants allow people around, sale agreed start of June, sold mid july(giving your two week vacant period - change at will)

Either way, you have received rent until end of June....EXACT same amount of rent!

PaulF
05-08-2005, 13:19 PM
With regards the deposit, you obviously do not have to do a check with them 6 weeks prior, but if you have time, it would be prudent to do so This is a complete waste of time and leaves you in an extremely vulnerable position - don't do it!, gives them time to sort out anything prior to end of tenancy. It would also be prudent, but again not mandatory, to have a final check with them on or after the last day of the tenancy.It will be mandatory if you want to use it as a basis for assessment!C'mon Mr Shed use your loaf!

dazalock
05-08-2005, 14:18 PM
I didnt think it was mandatory to do the Check with them?

PaulF
05-08-2005, 16:31 PM
For the dazalock's of the world who expect me to post every last detail or is just trying to be a "smartarse", no the tenant doesn't need or is entitled to be present but you DO have to conduct a check when the tenant has moved or is about to move out and not 6 weeks beforehand! Satisfied - Now please don't waste my time? :(

MrShed
05-08-2005, 21:51 PM
Ok paul....normally I agree with everything you say, but...

- How does having a check 6 weeks prior put you in a vulnerable position? Just gives the tenants a chance to rectify any issues!

- How is having the check with the tenants mandatory?? Unless you misread what I mean....yes there must be a check, but not with the tenants. If you didnt misread, then I dont understand how you must have the check with the tenants, basis for assessment is comparison between the final check and the initial check(inventory)!

MrShed
05-08-2005, 21:53 PM
After reading the contract it says

To permit the landlord or the landlord's agent to enter and view the premises with prospective tenants purchasers or occupiers in the daytime and upon reasonable prior notice.

I've spent the last week waiting for a time convienent to both the agent and tenant and all I'd like is this to move on. In the past when we've rented we never had a problem letting the agent in etc.

I'm afraid it doesnt matter whether this is in the contract or not....legally you must give the tenants quiet enjoyment to the property...this term contravenes that, as such it is an unfair term and is void. Unless an emergency, the tenant MUST agree to allow you into the property before you do so. Nor is this unfair of them really....I wouldnt want strangers wandering my house without my say so!

justaboutsane
06-08-2005, 07:16 AM
I am not sure it is not an unfair term, we use an AST prepared by Tessa Shepherdson at Landlord Law and it has the same term I am almost certain. However, we only go into the property with the tenants permission. If they are not wanting people to go through the property at the end of the tenancy I would be alarmed that something was wrong. We would try to keep entry to a minimum and a small inconvenience at the end of the agreement is in my mind a minor upheval.

MrWoof
06-08-2005, 09:08 AM
Ok paul....normally I agree with everything you say, but...- How does having a check 6 weeks prior put you in a vulnerable position? Just gives the tenants a chance to rectify any issues!
And if any damage occurs in the 6 weeks after the check?

Jennifer_M
06-08-2005, 09:16 AM
I am not sure it is not an unfair term, we use an AST prepared by Tessa Shepherdson at Landlord Law and it has the same term I am almost certain. However, we only go into the property with the tenants permission. If they are not wanting people to go through the property at the end of the tenancy I would be alarmed that something was wrong. We would try to keep entry to a minimum and a small inconvenience at the end of the agreement is in my mind a minor upheval.

It might be in your contract and written by someone at Landlord Law, it still doesn't mean that the tenant MUST allow viewings or that you have the tenant's authorisation at any time.
If the tenant doesn't want any viewings at all until he moves out, I'm afraid you'll have to live with it.

In these cases a bit of diplomacy and talking directly to the tenant (face to face or on the phone maybe) to agree on a 'schedule' that is acceptable to both of you might be a good thing.
But at the end of the day if he refuses there's not much you can do.

PaulF
06-08-2005, 10:49 AM
I am not sure it is not an unfair term, we use an AST prepared by Tessa Shepherdson at Landlord Law and it has the same term I am almost certain. However, we only go into the property with the tenants permission. If they are not wanting people to go through the property at the end of the tenancy I would be alarmed that something was wrong. We would try to keep entry to a minimum and a small inconvenience at the end of the agreement is in my mind a minor upheval.It's nothing to do with being an unfair term, it is to do with the tenant's right of occupation. Although they don't own the property, tenants have every other benefit that an owner would enjoy bestowed upon them. Just ask yourself if you didn't want somebody to come into your property you wouldn't let them would you?

I know landlords try to get away with it by inserting such a clause within AST's hoping the tenants complies because they know no better. It's not so much an unfair term but an onerous one. You say you only go into the property with the tenant's permission (quite rightly) but you should be telling the tenant that they don't have to comply if it's inconvenient.

I don't see why posters keep giving alternative arguments as there is nothing further to argue about quite frankly.

Posters
06-08-2005, 18:48 PM
Not sure what you're getting at Paul, I haven't said a word on this one!

MrShed
06-08-2005, 20:41 PM
And if any damage occurs in the 6 weeks after the check?

OK just to clarify....thought this was perfectly obvious from my first post...OBVIOUSLY you cannot JUST have that check, and that is it. You MUST still perform a check after the tenants have left. However, a previous check will give the tenants an opportunity to rectify problems in time for the final check, leading to possibly less hassle for both parties.