Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Vamoo

Can I Not Allow Viewings?

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, my LL decided to investigate the possibility of selling the house I've been renting for 13 months now 9 (on a 12 month contract). Moving out right now would be a hassle for me and I would like to ask if the can force me to allow viewings even if I'm out of the country (or even if I'm still here). The tenancy agreement does say things like "the windows of the property must be cleaned inside and out at lea once a month" etc., so that would assume I'm not allowed to leave the property any longer than 30 days - I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have the legal ground to demand that though. Basically, what's left for me to do? Tell them to give me the two months notice and look for buyers only after the property has been vacated? Thank you for your support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, my LL decided to investigate the possibility of selling the house I've been renting for 13 months now 9 (on a 12 month contract). Moving out right now would be a hassle for me and I would like to ask if the can force me to allow viewings even if I'm out of the country (or even if I'm still here). The tenancy agreement does say things like "the windows of the property must be cleaned inside and out at lea once a month" etc., so that would assume I'm not allowed to leave the property any longer than 30 days - I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have the legal ground to demand that though. Basically, what's left for me to do? Tell them to give me the two months notice and look for buyers only after the property has been vacated? Thank you for your support

My advice is 'act reasonably' - try and negotiate convenient times for viewings. They don't have to ask your permission - just give you notice (24 hours for maintenance, 3 days for landlord's visit). Try and trade cooperation for cooperation. In most situations the agent will feel just as uncomfortable about invading your privacy as you feel about having it invaded. If they are treating you like 'dodo' just don't bother to clean or tidy up when people come round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice is 'act reasonably' - try and negotiate convenient times for viewings. They don't have to ask your permission - just give you notice (24 hours for maintenance, 3 days for landlord's visit). Try and trade cooperation for cooperation. In most situations the agent will feel just as uncomfortable about invading your privacy as you feel about having it invaded. If they are treating you like 'dodo' just don't bother to clean or tidy up when people come round.

Wait, what do you mean they don't have to ask my permission? Are you saying that they can just impose viewings on me without my consent? I don't even see how that is force-able (all I have to do is procrastinate forever and keep them waiting, not answering calls or mails). How else are they going to get inside? Burglary? I've read that it is in my statutory rights to not allow any viewings if I don't want to; I just wanted to make sure and ask the question but your answer is the opposite of what I've read elsewhere. Am I missing something? Edited by Vamoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, my LL decided to investigate the possibility of selling the house I've been renting for 13 months now 9 (on a 12 month contract). Moving out right now would be a hassle for me and I would like to ask if the can force me to allow viewings even if I'm out of the country (or even if I'm still here). The tenancy agreement does say things like "the windows of the property must be cleaned inside and out at lea once a month" etc., so that would assume I'm not allowed to leave the property any longer than 30 days - I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have the legal ground to demand that though. Basically, what's left for me to do? Tell them to give me the two months notice and look for buyers only after the property has been vacated? Thank you for your support

You don't have to allow any viewings at all, it is your home for the duration of the tenancy and if anyone enters your home without your permission that is illegal entry. An agreement often has a clause where it says something about allowing entry if a reasonable period of notice is given, this is not enforceable. The clause you mention about how often the windows are cleaned is also nonsense and can be ignored, it is the state of the property at the end of the tenancy that matters.

There are other threads where this is discussed, i suggest you have a look at those. Also try the shelter website, where your rights are explained.

Unfortunately if you are away for an extended period there is a good chance an estate agent keen for a sale will enter the property illegally anyway, so be prepared for that.

I've no idea what the previus poster has been smoking but the advice is utterly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice is 'act reasonably' - try and negotiate convenient times for viewings. They don't have to ask your permission - just give you notice (24 hours for maintenance, 3 days for landlord's visit). Try and trade cooperation for cooperation. In most situations the agent will feel just as uncomfortable about invading your privacy as you feel about having it invaded. If they are treating you like 'dodo' just don't bother to clean or tidy up when people come round.

I agree with act reasonably, but the rest is a load of rubbish.

They DO HAVE to ask you permission, they DO HAVE to give you notice and you CAN tell them to get lost as you dont want viewings. And that my friend is the law, not opinion, just facts.

What do you mean about trade cooperation for cooperation, tenant doesnt want viewings and is paying rent, landlord wants viewings and is accepting rent, so who exactly is cooperating?

As to travelling, you may have a clause saying you have to inform the landlord if you will be away from the property for more than 14 days, thats quite possibly enforcable as often its imposed by insurance companies.

If it was me, my version of act reasonably in this situation would be to keep paying rent until the end of tenancy while not allowing viewings, perfectly reasonable, i do believe its called sticking to the contract both parties signed willingly

Edited by Rozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with act reasonably, but the rest is a load of rubbish.

They DO HAVE to ask you permission, they DO HAVE to give you notice and you CAN tell them to get lost as you dont want viewings. And that my friend is the law, not opinion, just facts.

What do you mean about trade cooperation for cooperation, tenant doesnt want viewings and is paying rent, landlord wants viewings and is accepting rent, so who exactly is cooperating?

As to travelling, you may have a clause saying you have to inform the landlord if you will be away from the property for more than 14 days, thats quite possibly enforcable as often its imposed by insurance companies.

If it was me, my version of act reasonably in this situation would be to keep paying rent until the end of tenancy while not allowing viewings, perfectly reasonable, i do believe its called sticking to the contract both parties signed willingly

Thanks, I'll probably either do that or negotiate a huge discount on the rent until they find a buyer (after all I'm here just to cover for voidage).

The house is a new build which has probably been empty since around 21/10/08 (that's the date of the last inspection on the electrical board); I know for sure that there were no previous tenants before us because the place didn't even have the floors before I paid the deposit (in July 2009), and it's close to Central London. It didn't even have the correct postcode yet! It's a two bedroom ground floor flat, with two bathrooms (one en suite), an open plan kitchen, patio, underfloor heating and ventilation system. All in all a really nice place and nice build quality as well. The agency offered 910pcm unfurnished at the time, and we asked 930pcm as long as it was fully furnished (I realize both prices are high but our situation at the time didn't allow me any time whatsoever to go around looking for alternatives: my girlfriend had been evicted, I worked 100 hours a week, I didn't even have time to buy furniture etc. She basically selected a few properties and I picked the first one that I liked).

I think I'll ask for 700pcm and allow them all the viewings they want; either that or I will give my notice and have them risk an empty property for however long it takes to find a buyer (I doubt they'll rent it to someone else in the meantime). Whether or not they accept, I'll just give my notice and, worst case scenario, save some money on one month's rent.

Do you think I should offer less? The only way it wouldn't work out as planned is if they ask me to sign a short term contract to get the discount but even then it's better than a kick in the teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll ask for 700pcm and allow them all the viewings they want; either that or I will give my notice and have them risk an empty property for however long it takes to find a buyer (I doubt they'll rent it to someone else in the meantime). Whether or not they accept, I'll just give my notice and, worst case scenario, save some money on one month's rent.

Do you think I should offer less? The only way it wouldn't work out as planned is if they ask me to sign a short term contract to get the discount but even then it's better than a kick in the teeth.

You have nothing to lose and hold all the cards, you sound like you are happy to go somewhere else so no problem. Ask for discount and explain you will allow viewings but want discount for your trouble and time. If they say no then you could still stay until end of your agreement and walk away on the day no questions asked. (wasnt sure about the 9 after your month 13 in OP, assuming you mean you are on a 1 month rolling then yeah 1 months notice, check out dates for this).

If they ask you to sign a new contract simply say no, AST is for min 6 months by the way.

If you give your notice then you still dont have to allow viewers, so unless they luck out and get someone on day one then its void ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have nothing to lose and hold all the cards, you sound like you are happy to go somewhere else so no problem. Ask for discount and explain you will allow viewings but want discount for your trouble and time. If they say no then you could still stay until end of your agreement and walk away on the day no questions asked. (wasnt sure about the 9 after your month 13 in OP, assuming you mean you are on a 1 month rolling then yeah 1 months notice, check out dates for this).

If they ask you to sign a new contract simply say no, AST is for min 6 months by the way.

If you give your notice then you still dont have to allow viewers, so unless they luck out and get someone on day one then its void ahead.

The 9 was just a typo: yeah, I'm on month 13 of a 12 month contract (moved in on July the 18th). By the way, the rent day is on the 18th of each month, which probably means I should have negotiated a new rent by yesterday but whatever... :P

Thank you for your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have nothing to lose and hold all the cards, you sound like you are happy to go somewhere else so no problem. Ask for discount and explain you will allow viewings but want discount for your trouble and time. If they say no then you could still stay until end of your agreement and walk away on the day no questions asked. (wasnt sure about the 9 after your month 13 in OP, assuming you mean you are on a 1 month rolling then yeah 1 months notice, check out dates for this).

If they ask you to sign a new contract simply say no, AST is for min 6 months by the way.

If you give your notice then you still dont have to allow viewers, so unless they luck out and get someone on day one then its void ahead.

If we both agree on the terms, what sort of contract would it be best to sign? Obviously something undetermined, giving me the possibility to move out when I chose, but how to put this in terms that seem most favourable to the LL as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we both agree on the terms, what sort of contract would it be best to sign? Obviously something undetermined, giving me the possibility to move out when I chose, but how to put this in terms that seem most favourable to the LL as well?

Tricky one, i think this is one for legal experts, in my case we have a new piece of paper (not a tenancy agreement) which states it is an adendum, it has the terms we agreed on, date and both our signatures (funnily enough it was signed the day i moved in as we both realised the LA was trying to get more money so we worked around them) and we both have a copy.

Would it stand up in court, i dont know but its better than nothing. Regarding the move out when you choose thats slightly tricky, you can already do that with appropriate notice so you have to be careful not to lose out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to travelling, you may have a clause saying you have to inform the landlord if you will be away from the property for more than 14 days, thats quite possibly enforcable as often its imposed by insurance companies.

ha! more than 48 hours away from my rental and I have to drain the central heating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was assuming that the tenant would have signed a tenancy agreement in which could be found the following wording (as they are all pretty standard these days with only minor variation):

"Permit the Landlord and or his agents or others, after giving 24 hours written Notice and at reasonable hours of the daytime, to enter the Property:

- to view the state and condition and to execute repairs and other works upon the Property or other properties.

- to show prospective purchasers the Property at all times during the Term and to erect a board to indicate that the Property is for sale.

- to show prospective tenants the Property, during the last month of the Term and to erect a board to indicate that the Property is to let.

Where the Landlord or the Landlord’s Agent have served a valid written Notice of the need to enter to view the state and condition or to effect repairs, the Tenant agrees to them using their keys to gain access within three days of such a request being made, (except in case of emergency when access shall be immediate), if the Tenant is unable to grant access to the Landlord or the Landlord’s Agent."

So refusing to allow access under the above circumstances would be a breach of the tenancy agreement. The remedy would be for the landlord to serve notice - as the tenant is leaving anyway it simply means a bad reference.

But good luck with whatever strategy you decide on. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha! more than 48 hours away from my rental and I have to drain the central heating!

No you don't, the OFT ruled such clauses unfair.

they said:

"A tenant should not be expected to do something in this situation that a normal householder would not do for their owned house when they go away for a normal holiday".

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was assuming that the tenant would have signed a tenancy agreement in which could be found the following wording (as they are all pretty standard these days with only minor variation):

"Permit the Landlord and or his agents or others, after giving 24 hours written Notice and at reasonable hours of the daytime, to enter the Property:

- to view the state and condition and to execute repairs and other works upon the Property or other properties.

- to show prospective purchasers the Property at all times during the Term and to erect a board to indicate that the Property is for sale.

- to show prospective tenants the Property, during the last month of the Term and to erect a board to indicate that the Property is to let.

Where the Landlord or the Landlord’s Agent have served a valid written Notice of the need to enter to view the state and condition or to effect repairs, the Tenant agrees to them using their keys to gain access within three days of such a request being made, (except in case of emergency when access shall be immediate), if the Tenant is unable to grant access to the Landlord or the Landlord’s Agent."

So refusing to allow access under the above circumstances would be a breach of the tenancy agreement. The remedy would be for the landlord to serve notice - as the tenant is leaving anyway it simply means a bad reference.

But good luck with whatever strategy you decide on. <_<

Yes yes but that clause as you read it would seek to usurp statute and is therefor unenforcible. Iread it along the lines of 'it's not reasonable for me at any time,NO' but the law reads it as 'we don't care statute allows the tenant to refuse so NO'

The only issue that could possibly arise is where the landlord seeks to use the entry for emergencies and then the tenant would be liable for claims as a result of any damage that resulted because of a refusal.

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue that could possibly arise is where the landlord seeks to use the entry for emergencies and then the tenant would be liable for claims as a result of any damage that resulted because of a refusal.

Thats fair enough though really i think, restricting access when there is an emergency is just plain daft, but when the landlord says "its an emergency and im bringing guests who will view while im here".. well wheres my cricket bat B) (joke before all the BTL idiots get on their high horses)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we've been over this many times.read the writings of cartimandua,rozza,matt henson,macguffin etc etc.

I have also expressed my views! Since expressing them I have read on another forum that a landlord was awarded £200 damages by the court where the tenant refused access to carry out repairs after notice was given. The full circumstances were not set out, but apparently the judge said that damages were payable because the tenancy agreement provided for access. A rogue judgement or not applicable to access for viewings? Perhaps, but who wants to take the risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also expressed my views! Since expressing them I have read on another forum that a landlord was awarded £200 damages by the court where the tenant refused access to carry out repairs after notice was given. The full circumstances were not set out, but apparently the judge said that damages were payable because the tenancy agreement provided for access. A rogue judgement or not applicable to access for viewings? Perhaps, but who wants to take the risk?

sounds reasonable to me, if repairs are needed and people are stopping them being done then they are just being daft/

repairs != viewings before you get too excited. repairs and inspections are set out in law, viewings arent so totally different thing. There is NO risk with denying access for viewings!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is NO risk with denying access for viewings!!

Statements like that and bald assertions that landlords cannot insist on access for viewings where the tenancy agreement so provides make me nervous on behalf of tenants.

There is no justification for asserting, as many do not only in this site but all over the place, that the law provides that any provision in a tenancy agreement that allows access for viewings is unenforceable or void, or at least for asserting that the law is clear on the point. There is neither a statutory provision nor a case that expressly deals with the point. In the absence of either, I think the starting point has to be to assume that the provision is enforceable and then look to see if there are any general legal principles that can be applied that lead us to conclude that it is not. Arguments, not entirely without merit, have been advanced to argue that the law favours the tenant to the point that any access for viewings can be denied. However, the simple fact is that until we have guidance from one of the higher courts we do not know whether, and if so to what extent and in what circumstances, such provisions can be enforced.

As to risk, we have in past exchanges agreed that few landlords are going to go to court to obtain an injunction to allow viewings or, after the tenant has left, sue for damages. There is though an important scenario that we both overlooked, and was exactly the scenario in the case I alluded to above, and that is where after the tenancy ends the tenant sues for the return of the deposit and the landlord makes a counterclaim. Making counterclaims is almost routine for landlords defending tenants' claims. The really noteworthy thing about the case though was that the judge awarded damages because there was a clause in the agreement that required the tenant to allow access. Admittedly the case concerned access for repairs, but I can see the same logic being applied to access for viewings. A landlord may have difficulty is establishing the extent of his loss, but difficult does not mean impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statements like that and bald assertions that landlords cannot insist on access for viewings where the tenancy agreement so provides make me nervous on behalf of tenants.

The really noteworthy thing about the case though was that the judge awarded damages because there was a clause in the agreement that required the tenant to allow access. Admittedly the case concerned access for repairs, but I can see the same logic being applied to access for viewings. A landlord may have difficulty is establishing the extent of his loss, but difficult does not mean impossible.

Just a couple of points, you try and spin the same "im only trying to be reasonable, and im a nice guy" but you really are talking a load of old rubbish.

It is NOT a bald assertion it is a fact, the landlord is allowed access for repairs according to the law, so the judge may have awarded damages because of a clause but he was allowed to due to the law saying that he may have access for repairs.

I showed you months ago the relevant points in the law regarding access and you went off on a tangent waffling (i enjoy our arguments sometime), in case you have forgotten, im going to lay it out for you in the simplest terms

To claim for a loss you must PROVE one exists, where you have a tenant in situ it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that a loss exists.

So please stop keep saying "im scared for tenants" and hoping people will listen to you and not stand up for themselves as people like myself will always be there to stand up for people.

Also regading your point

Admittedly the case concerned access for repairs, but I can see the same logic being applied to access for viewings

Repairs and viewings are NOT the same, please get your head around this fact, it really isnt rocket science.

Could a landlord sue for access, as we have agreed the answer is possibly (given time constraints its unlikely but possible)

Could a landlord sue for losses due to restriction on viewings, of course they can, and then the case can get thrown out and they can look like the idiots they would be.

Edited by Rozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I try to persuade anyone that my point of view has at least some merit, let me pose a question for Pedro the Fed and Rozza:

You had a tenancy. The tenancy agreement provided that during the last month of the tenancy the tenant was to allow potential tenants to view on 24 hours notice. During the last month the landlord made repeated requests to allow viewings. The landlord behaved completely reasonably and was prepared to be flexible. You declined to allow viewings. The tenancy ended and the landlord declined to return your deposit on the grounds that he was entitled to retain it to cover damages arising from your breach. You sue the landlord for the return of the deposit.

You are now in court. The judge has lots of cases he needs to get through and has an air of impatience about him. He poses this question: Now Mr Pedro/Rozza. You signed an agreement that says that you would allow inspections by prospective tenants during the last month of the tenancy. You declined to do so despite repeated requests. What makes you think you were entitled to do that? How are you going to reply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I try to persuade anyone that my point of view has at least some merit, let me pose a question for Pedro the Fed and Rozza:

You had a tenancy. The tenancy agreement provided that during the last month of the tenancy the tenant was to allow potential tenants to view on 24 hours notice. During the last month the landlord made repeated requests to allow viewings. The landlord behaved completely reasonably and was prepared to be flexible. You declined to allow viewings. The tenancy ended and the landlord declined to return your deposit on the grounds that he was entitled to retain it to cover damages arising from your breach. You sue the landlord for the return of the deposit.

You are now in court. The judge has lots of cases he needs to get through and has an air of impatience about him. He poses this question: Now Mr Pedro/Rozza. You signed an agreement that says that you would allow inspections by prospective tenants during the last month of the tenancy. You declined to do so despite repeated requests. What makes you think you were entitled to do that? How are you going to reply?

Id reply as follows.

Hello mr judge

1. According to the law the deposit is in place for damage to the property, not for whatever the landlord decides he wants it for so give me my money as he kept the deposit with no legal basis.

2. The clause in the tenancy is unconscionable and therefore unenforcable under contract law, also it interferes with my statutory rights and therefore is also a void clause

3. The law says i was the legal occupier of the property during my tenancy and therefore have full rights of access other than reasonable requests for inspection for damage or law enforcement, the landlord was attempting to do neither so i exercised my rights and told him to bugger off.

4. The most important one, how much are you going to award me for the landlord STEALing my deposit.

Rozza

Edit to add, even disregarding the above, the landlord would also have to conclusively prove he had suffered a loss, in a rental situation this is impossible to prove! (obviously) Therefore the burden of proof cannot be met.

Id also like to add, the landlord wouldnt be able to keep the deposit as it would be with the TDS, unless you are saying he didnt register it so ill have 3 times that as a penalty as well please.

Edited by Rozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the judge's comments:

1. According to the law the deposit is in place for damage to the property, not for whatever the landlord decides he wants it for so give me my money as he kept the deposit with no legal basis.

What the deposit is for is a matter of contract. The tenancy agreement says that the deposit is to cover arrears of rent and any loss incurred by the landlord as a result of the tenant's breach of agreement. In any event what the contract has to say about the deposit is not really relevant as your landlord has made a counterclaim. Even if the deposit cannot be claimed to cover the breach the landlord complains of, we still need to deal with the question of whether or not there was a breach.

2. The clause in the tenancy is unconscionable and therefore unenforcable under contract law, also it interferes with my statutory rights and therefore is also a void clause

If by "unconscionable" you mean "oppressive" I fear I cannot agree. You were not being asked to do anything that an owner-occupier wishing to sell his property does. A landlord may seek to enforce the provision oppressively, for example by insisting that he is entitled to show over a constant stream of visitors or call at any time that suits his convenience, but that is quite different. I recently sold my house and found that prospective buyers rarely stayed more than ten or fifteen minutes. I find it difficult to believe that during the period of a month you could not have found time to allow one or two inspections at the very least. Sparing your landlord half an hour or an hour may be an irritation, but is hardly oppressive. You refer to your statutory rights; to which statutory rights do you refer as I confess I am unable to think of any that apply?

3. The law says i was the legal occupier of the property during my tenancy and therefore have full rights of access other than reasonable requests for inspection for damage or law enforcement, the landlord was attempting to do neither so i exercised my rights and told him to bugger off.

The fact that you concede that your landlord may have access for certain purposes is a clear indication that you concede that your right to exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment are not absolute. It is all a question of degree. The tenancy agreement is very clearly worded and in it you granted the landlord the right to show prospective tenants over the property. As I have said, the reasonable exercise of the right you granted cannot be oppressive.

4. The most important one, how much are you going to award me for the landlord STEALing my deposit.

I do not have time to explain to you the law of theft, but there is nothing in the evidence before me that suggests in any way that your landlord is guilty of theft.

Edit to add, even disregarding the above, the landlord would also have to conclusively prove he had suffered a loss, in a rental situation this is impossible to prove! (obviously) Therefore the burden of proof cannot be met.

You are getting ahead of yourself. Before we can decide the question of damages we need to decide if there is a breach of contract. If I conclude that there is a breach of contract I must award damages. If your landlord is unable to show a loss the damages will be nominal, but damages they will be. You cannot argue that a breach of contract that does not lead to other than nominal damages is not a breach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the deposit is for is a matter of contract.

WRONG!! The LAW says the deposit is for the following, if the tenant does one of the following "Leave the property owing rent, Damage the property, Do not pay their bills" go on, look it up its easy to find, it is not a matter of contract

In any event what the contract has to say about the deposit is not really relevant as your landlord has made a counterclaim. Even if the deposit cannot be claimed to cover the breach the landlord complains of, we still need to deal with the question of whether or not there was a breach.

Hang on, i dont remember the counterclaim, oh there we go you had to change the scenario to try to be correct. but apart from this in your first point the contract is all important, then you say its not relevant talk about contradict yourself (i hope you arent a lawyer)

If by "unconscionable" you mean "oppressive" I fear I cannot agree.

No, i mean unconscionable, its a legal term, look it up.

The fact that you concede that your landlord may have access for certain purposes is a clear indication that you concede that your right to exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment are not absolute. It is all a question of degree. The tenancy agreement is very clearly worded and in it you granted the landlord the right to show prospective tenants over the property. As I have said, the reasonable exercise of the right you granted cannot be oppressive.

Degree doesnt come into it, tenant is the legal occupier, again go away and read about the rights, restrictions and covenants that confers, you may start to understand.

I do not have time to explain to you the law of theft, but there is nothing in the evidence before me that suggests in any way that your landlord is guilty of theft.

Nothing other than the landlord illegally took the tenants money, ok have it your way.. how about a new piece of evidence was presented which... (oh wait, i dont have to resort to changing things mid way as you did earlier, my point was already made)

Note, you didnt answer "the landlord wouldnt be able to keep the deposit as it would be with the TDS, unless you are saying he didnt register it so ill have 3 times that as a penalty as well please." which is a critical point as how did the landlord keep the deposit if he never had it to hand?

Cant even be bothered with the rest, im gonna eat my breakfast now! ;)

Edited by Rozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of your reply suggests you are rattled. Just in case there is any misunderstanding here I am not out to score points. My concern is that those who go to legal advice sites should not be given incorrect information, act on it and lose out. I have a question: Are you open to being persuaded that your sincerely held belief on this issue may be wrong? If the answer is "yes", then let's start again and discuss the question calmly and see if we can come to a consensus. If the answer is "no", then we can leave it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of your reply suggests you are rattled. Just in case there is any misunderstanding here I am not out to score points. My concern is that those who go to legal advice sites should not be given incorrect information, act on it and lose out. I have a question: Are you open to being persuaded that your sincerely held belief on this issue may be wrong? If the answer is "yes", then let's start again and discuss the question calmly and see if we can come to a consensus. If the answer is "no", then we can leave it there.

Im not rattled, nor am i out to score points. I was eating my brekkie, saw your reply where you mixed up the points and changed the scenario and thought "here we go again" and maybe replied a bit more emotive than normal.

A couple of things, this isnt a legal advice site, people come here asking for opinions.

Am i open to being persuaded my belief is wrong, of course i am, to do otherwise would be ridiculous.

Maybe worth a new thread as this one has been highjacked to pieces ;) maybe something like "can the landlord keep my deposit if i do not allow viewings" or similar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.