No Views?

[Tiger Woods?]

Not a valid legal argument.

I never said it was a legal argument, but one that works in most cases.

You just say to the LL that you are fine about people visiting when you are not in, as long as s/he agrees in wiritng to be responsible for any loses/damage/theft. They soon agree to only arrange visits when you are there. It is just another way of explaining to pig thick LLs why it is unreasonable for them to go tromping through your house with strangers while you are not at home. Generally, letting contracts have some clause about tenants not doing anything to invalidate the LLs insurance, so they tend to be reasonable when you point out that what they want to do will invalidate yours.

Mostly people are reasonable when you give them reasons that show that you are not being arbitrarily unreasonable yourself.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Tiger Woods?

[Mrs Bear]

I never said it was a legal argument, but one that works in most cases.

You just say to the LL that you are fine about people visiting when you are not in, as long as s/he agrees in wiritng to be responsible for any loses/damage/theft. They soon agree to only arrange visits when you are there. It is just another way of explaining to pig thick LLs why it is unreasonable for them to go tromping through your house with strangers while you are not at home. Generally letting contracts have some clause about tenants not doing anything to invalidate the LLs insurance, so they tend to be reasonable when you point out that what they want to do will invalidate yours.

Mostly people are reasonable when you give them reasons that show that you are not being arbitrarily unresonable yourself.

Also, believe it or not , it is not unknown for EAs to unlock back doors, French windows, etc. for viewers, and then forget to close/lock them.

It's happened to me more than once (while viewing). Once I waited till we were actually out of the property to see whether the tw*t would remember.

'You did lock the back door, didn't you?'

EA, looking highly embarrassed: 'Oh, sh*t, hang on...'

[Blue Peter]

It is just another way of explaining to pig thick LLs why it is unreasonable for them to go tromping through your house with strangers while you are not at home.

Your home surely? It's the LL's house, but your home for the duration,

Peter.

[Tiger Woods?]

Your home surely? It's the LL's house, but your home for the duration,

Peter.

Fair enough distinction...though it tends to be a bank's house. The LL is just the middleman who transfers your rental payment to the bank and keeps the place in working order.

[Damocles]

Courts read a covenant of quiet enjoyment between the Landlord and Tenant into every rental agreement, or tenancy. Thus a renter, or tenant, has the right to quiet enjoyment of the leased premises regardless of whether the rental agreement contains such a covenant.

in other words, you get quiet enjoyment as of right, even if its not in the agreement

Agreed.

.....and you certainly cant write it out.

There has to be doubt as to that.

*

A landlord is entitled to do something which would otherwise be a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment if (a) a court authorises it, or (b ) the tenant agrees to it. If the tenant signs an agreement which contains a clause that says he must allow prospective tenants to inspect, he has already given his agreement. There is no qualitative difference between giving consent six months ahead or the day before. Of course the landlord should make an appointment, but that is just a matter of detail.

To use the language of the court in Goldmile Properties Limited v Speiro Lechouris, neither the landlord's covenant nor the tenant's covenant trumps the other. That case is well worth reading as, although it deals with access for repairs, it is not about whether the landlord could have access (which was not disputed) but about how he could have access. It was all about what is reasonable. The report is quite short and can be found here: http://www.dilapidationsdirect.co.uk/CaseLaw/Goldmile%20Properties%20Ltd%20v%20Lechouritis%20(2003).pdf I could quote extensively from it to support my position.

[Rozza]

A landlord is entitled to do something which would otherwise be a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment if (a) a court authorises it, or (b ) the tenant agrees to it. If the tenant signs an agreement which contains a clause that says he must allow prospective tenants to inspect, he has already given his agreement. There is no qualitative difference between giving consent six months ahead or the day before. Of course the landlord should make an appointment, but that is just a matter of detail.

To use the language of the court in Goldmile Properties Limited v Speiro Lechouris, neither the landlord's covenant nor the tenant's covenant trumps the other. That case is well worth reading as, although it deals with access for repairs, it is not about whether the landlord could have access (which was not disputed) but about how he could have access. It was all about what is reasonable. The report is quite short and can be found here: http://www.dilapidationsdirect.co.uk/CaseLaw/Goldmile%20Properties%20Ltd%20v%20Lechouritis%20(2003).pdf I could quote extensively from it to support my position.

Talk about twist things!

Just to make things simple. From what you have said above

Tenant has covenant with quiet enjoyment and landlord has covenant with access for repairs, neither trumps the other and i agree with you there.

Where is the landlords covenant for viewings, because there is no doubt (and lets be very clear about this) that repairs and viewings are not the same thing. Therefore we come up with a clause in the contract vs the covenant, and the covenant could very easily be seen to trump the clause. Therefore although the case is worth reading if someone is asking about access for repairs it is pretty much irrelevant here as this is to do with viewings.

As a point of interest whats your view on the following?

Lets assume i sign a contract and it allows for viewings, and then simply say "sorry the time is not convenient" to every viewing the landlord asks for, how do you see that being argued in a court?

Edited October 15, 2010 by Rozza

[Damocles]

Talk about twist things! etc

I am puzzled why you think I am twisting things. All I have done is refer to a case which discusses the covenant for quiet enjoyment in some detail and in particular with regard to what is reasonable. I suggested that similar arguments may apply where it is the tenant's covenant to allow viewings that is under consideration. Allowing access for viewings is indeed not the same as allowing access for repairs or estate management purposes. However, it is not that different - the essence of both is that someone goes in. I can certainly see the case being relied on by a landlord's lawyer. Can you honestly read the case and find nothing in it that a judge would feel is at least worthy of consideration in a case concerning access for viewings?

I readily concede that, unlike carrying out repairs, a tenant derives no benefit from allowing viewings and it may be that that is something the court would home in on. Against that, I think a landlord could argue that the tenant did after all agree that he would allow viewings. You may wish to argue that the tenant had no opportunity to negotiate each clause of the agreement, but you could put that argument forward in respect of any term. As I said above, I think it has to come down to a question of degree. As was said by the House of Lords in Southwark London Borough Council v Tanner “the covenant for quiet enjoyment is broken if the landlord [...] does anything which substantially interferes with the tenant’s title to or possession of the demised premises or with his ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the demised premises." (My italics). I am having difficulty seeing how half an hour a week for four weeks can be a substantial interference.

I agree with whoever it was who said that landlords should not have unreasonable expectations about minimising void periods or have their finances so delicately balanced that they cannot afford them. What we do not want though is for landlords to start factoring void periods into the rents they charge because they expect that their tenants will be difficult about viewings when the tenancy is drawing to an end.

I do not suggest that Goldmile is a binding precedent, but rather a guide as to the way the court may approach the question.

As a point of interest whats your view on the following?

Lets assume i sign a contract and it allows for viewings, and then simply say "sorry the time is not convenient" to every viewing the landlord asks for, how do you see that being argued in a court?

I suppose it is going to come down to how many times/dates the landlord proposes and whether the tenant had a reasonable excuse for refusing any suggested date and time. If after suggesting a few times/dates the landlord said, "Well, when will it be convenient?" and the tenant declined to come up with a date and time, I think the tenant may be in difficulty if the court inclines to the view that a covenant to allow inspections is enforceable so long as the landlord acts reasonably. I can see a County Court judge asking a tenant: "Would you have found your way to accommodating a plumber if the central heating had broken down in mid-February?"

Edited October 15, 2010 by Damocles

[Riedquat]

I suppose it is going to come down to how many times/dates the landlord proposes and whether the tenant had a reasonable excuse for refusing any suggested date and time. If after suggesting a few times/dates the landlord said, "Well, when will it be convenient?" and the tenant declined to come up with a date and time, I think the tenant may be in difficulty if the court inclines to the view that a covenant to allow inspections is enforceable so long as the landlord acts reasonably. I can see a County Court judge asking a tenant: "Would you have found your way to accommodating a plumber if the central heating had broken down in mid-February?"

I would hope not because the plumber is a completely different situation, one where the tenant would be perfectly willing to go out of his way to accommodate, including taking time off work or cancelling a journey if necessary. I really hope there's no way any court would expect a tenant to do that for a viewing.

[Damocles]

I would hope not because the plumber is a completely different situation, one where the tenant would be perfectly willing to go out of his way to accommodate, including taking time off work or cancelling a journey if necessary. I really hope there's no way any court would expect a tenant to do that for a viewing.

To an extent you have made my point for me. The tenant is only too willing to allow access for his own benefit, but not for the landlord's when he agreed he would when he signed up. No court is going to suggest that a tenant has to take time off work to allow viewings. However, assuming the tenant is not away working or on holiday, how often is it going to be genuinely the case that a tenant cannot make time? I have said repeatedly that a tenant cannot be expected to entertain a constant stream of prospective tenants. I also hesitate to suggest with any degree of certainty what would be reasonable, but there must be something that is reasonable.

My basic point is this: on what grounds does a tenant have an absolute right to deny access for potential tenants to view when he agreed that he would allow such viewings?

[Number79]

The argument I have always used to reject visits when I am not at home is that it would invalidate my contents insurance (which it does.) Otherwise, I tend to be as helpful and reasonable as possible in terms of allowing prospective new tenants to view the property - what goes around comes around etc.

This of course all goes out the window if the LL has been a *****.

Off topic here so sory to jack the thread a bit but whilst those in the know are active here then I have a question about locks.

When we took on this let I asked for the locks to be changed. After much arguing with the LA it was agreed that they would. However, all that was done was the cheapest lock ever was fitted to the front door and the cheap old lock on the back was never changed. I am pretty sure that my insurance wouldn't cough if either of them were bypassed.

I told the LA that if it was not sorted out that I would replace the locks, making the place secure, and refit the ll's locks on leaving. Big argument ensued and I have yet to do it. What do you guys reckon?

[Rozza]

Assuming you get on alright with the landlord i would contact them, tell them the LA has not done the job correctly and that you want/need the locks changed. Give them a couple of days to answer and if nothing is forthcoming just change the locks yourself.

There is some debate as to whether the landlord is entitled to a key. e.g

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1682

But personally i dont see why the landlord shouldnt have a key so long as they dont think they can just waltz in whenever they like.

As to the arguement with the LA, well and LA is an EA and as we all know most of them are idiots so dont waste your time arguing with them, sort it out between yourself and the landlord.

[Rozza]

My basic point is this: on what grounds does a tenant have an absolute right to deny access for potential tenants to view when he agreed that he would allow such viewings?

On the grounds that he is the legal occupier and as such is legally allowed to deny access to the property to anyone he wishes except in certain legally defined circumstances.

[Damocles]

On the grounds that he is the legal occupier and as such is legally allowed to deny access to the property to anyone he wishes except in certain legally defined circumstances.

So signing an agreement that says: "During the last month of the tenancy the tenant will allow prospective tenants to view the property at reasonable times and upon not less than 24 hours notice" does not create "legally defined circumstances"?

[Rozza]

So signing an agreement that says: "During the last month of the tenancy the tenant will allow prospective tenants to view the property at reasonable times and upon not less than 24 hours notice" does not create "legally defined circumstances"?

sorry, bad choice of wording, i should have said legally defined people for specific circumstances. e.g police or the landlord to effect repairs.

The clause is unenforcable as you cannot define reasonable. Take my situation as an example, i get on great with my landlord so its entirely hypothetical but heres how it is.

Myself and my partner are both out of the house mon-fri between about 7am and 6pm for work. When i get in i am then out again at the gym until about 9pm, i then have dinner and do not want to be disturbed. I do not want anyone i dont know (i.e a viewer) in the house when my girlfriend is alone. so i would say this rules out weekdays for viewings.

At the weekend we are often out all day saturday and in the evening, and often out sunday. so in my opinion a reasonable time when i would expect to allow people to view my home would be never as it is never convenient and nobody is coming in when im not there (as is my legal right).

[Damocles]

sorry, bad choice of wording, i should have said legally defined people for specific circumstances. e.g police or the landlord to effect repairs.

The clause is unenforcable as you cannot define reasonable. Take my situation as an example, i get on great with my landlord so its entirely hypothetical but heres how it is.

Myself and my partner are both out of the house mon-fri between about 7am and 6pm for work. When i get in i am then out again at the gym until about 9pm, i then have dinner and do not want to be disturbed. I do not want anyone i dont know (i.e a viewer) in the house when my girlfriend is alone. so i would say this rules out weekdays for viewings.

At the weekend we are often out all day saturday and in the evening, and often out sunday. so in my opinion a reasonable time when i would expect to allow people to view my home would be never as it is never convenient and nobody is coming in when im not there (as is my legal right).

I do not think we can say the provision is unenforceable because of the appearance of the word "reasonable". The requirement that viewings should be at reasonable times is there for the benefit of the tenant to exclude the possibility of viewings at unreasonable times. If I had left anything about being reasonable out you would be saying the clause is unenforceable because it allows viewings at any time!

You also seem to be suggesting that whether or not the tenant has to concede to a request depends on the tenant's lifestyle and that cannot possibly be right. In practice there may be difficulty, for example if the tenant works shifts, but if you can find a window for repairs you can find a window for viewings. If you concede that the tenant has to accommodate the landlord if he wants to inspect the condition of the property, why should accommodating viewings by prospective tenants be regarded as qualitatively different?

There can be no argument that the essence of a tenancy is that a tenant has the exclusive right to occupy the property let, but the right is not absolute.

[Rozza]

You also seem to be suggesting that whether or not the tenant has to concede to a request depends on the tenant's lifestyle and that cannot possibly be right. In practice there may be difficulty, for example if the tenant works shifts, but if you can find a window for repairs you can find a window for viewings. If you concede that the tenant has to accommodate the landlord if he wants to inspect the condition of the property, why should accommodating viewings by prospective tenants be regarded as qualitatively different?

There can be no argument that the essence of a tenancy is that a tenant has the exclusive right to occupy the property let, but the right is not absolute.

Depending on the tenants lifestyle can be and is right, they are the legal occupier, all rights of access are granted and withdrawn by them, its that simple. As to the window for repairs, provisions are made for this, if the landlord has to do repairs and tenant cannot be available this is already covered in law and the landlord can get access for this reason. but when are you going to understand that repairs and viewings are not the same thing!!!!

As to "why should accommodating viewings by prospective tenants be regarded as qualitatively different?"

Because one has been defined as a legal requirement, the other is a contract term. I know u will never agree on this but thats how it is im afraid.

[Riedquat]

To an extent you have made my point for me. The tenant is only too willing to allow access for his own benefit, but not for the landlord's when he agreed he would when he signed up. No court is going to suggest that a tenant has to take time off work to allow viewings. However, assuming the tenant is not away working or on holiday, how often is it going to be genuinely the case that a tenant cannot make time? I have said repeatedly that a tenant cannot be expected to entertain a constant stream of prospective tenants. I also hesitate to suggest with any degree of certainty what would be reasonable, but there must be something that is reasonable.

My basic point is this: on what grounds does a tenant have an absolute right to deny access for potential tenants to view when he agreed that he would allow such viewings?

Why should the tenant have to make any effort whatsoever for someone else? More to the point, what rights does a landlord have of insisting that such a clause is in an agreement? If it's not an acceptable term then it's irrelevent.

I've not made your point at all. Of course the tenant will allow access for his own benefit - it's his home. You were suggesting that if he's willing to go out of his way for that then he should be for something else, which is obviously nonsense. Of course he can make time. The question is why on earth should he?

[Damocles]

Depending on the tenants lifestyle can be and is right

I do not want to get too bogged down on this point, but are you saying that if the tenant is "always out" that excuses him from performing the obligation at all?

all rights of access are granted and withdrawn by them, its that simple.

But on what basis can a tenant unilaterally withdraw the consent he gave when he signed the agreement?

As to the window for repairs, provisions are made for this, if the landlord has to do repairs and tenant cannot be available this is already covered in law and the landlord can get access for this reason. but when are you going to understand that repairs and viewings are not the same thing!!!!

Of course repairs and viewings are different things, but what is so different about them that they have to be subject to entirely different sets of rules?

As to "why should accommodating viewings by prospective tenants be regarded as qualitatively different?"

Because one has been defined as a legal requirement, the other is a contract term. I know u will never agree on this but thats how it is im afraid.

What statute does is to imply certain provisions into certain tenancy agreements. Once they are in the agreement they are on the same footing as any other provision. It is not the case that a landlord's right of entry in connection with repairs is some "legal requirement" that makes it different from any other "contract term." You are presumably not suggesting that only terms implied into contracts by law are enforceable.

[Damocles]

Why should the tenant have to make any effort whatsoever for someone else?

Because he agreed he would?

More to the point, what rights does a landlord have of insisting that such a clause is in an agreement?

No more not less than anything else that goes into a tenancy agreement.

If it's not an acceptable term then it's irrelevent.

If it is not acceptable then why agree it? (I readily concede that that may not be an option in practice, but why single this provision out from all the others?)

I've not made your point at all. Of course the tenant will allow access for his own benefit - it's his home. You were suggesting that if he's willing to go out of his way for that then he should be for something else, which is obviously nonsense. Of course he can make time. The question is why on earth should he?

As I said, because he agreed to it?

[Rozza]

I do not want to get too bogged down on this point, but are you saying that if the tenant is "always out" that excuses him from performing the obligation at all?

Thats exactly what im saying, because there is NO obligation.

But on what basis can a tenant unilaterally withdraw the consent he gave when he signed the agreement?

On the basis that the tenant is the legal occupier and they are granted this right under english law.

Of course repairs and viewings are different things, but what is so different about them that they have to be subject to entirely different sets of rules?

1 is covered by statute (access for repairs), 1 isnt (access for viewings). therefore 2 totally different subjects subject to different restrictions.

What statute does is to imply certain provisions into certain tenancy agreements. Once they are in the agreement they are on the same footing as any other provision. It is not the case that a landlord's right of entry in connection with repairs is some "legal requirement" that makes it different from any other "contract term." You are presumably not suggesting that only terms implied into contracts by law are enforceable.

Nope, but i am saying it is the case that the case that the landlords right of access for repairs is 100% different from other contract terms as it is enforcable regardless of what is signed, so if landlord and tenant signs a contract saying "no access for repairs" this clause is worthless, therefore it overrides.

If you stop trying to dress up that the access for repairs can be used for viewings then you are left with only one question, that of "can a tenant restrict access to the property for anything not covered by statutory laws" and the answer is very simply YES.

By way of control of access afforded to legal occupier

By way of harassment laws

By way of quiet enjoyment

Not saying all 3 apply in all cases but theres quite a few things to argue, which is why when you say to an agent or landlord "no viewings" they dont go court, because they would have a massive battle to try to win. Am i saying 100% they would lose, obviously not but i will say that I am 99.9999999999% sure they will lose and all the legal council i have sought on this matter and threads and replies of other people on this forum back up this view.

I know we cant change your mind and thats fine, but I and others will continue to advise people as to their rights, which on other subjects than this i agree with you on (other topics on this forum)

The link below explains what the OFT had to say about clauses which effectively force access

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

Not saying that link is the be all and end all but the OFT wording is pretty clear on this, that being as i have said before that the clause is worthless

Edited October 22, 2010 by Rozza

[Damocles]

I cannot see there is whole lot of point in continuing debating point by point. You are convinced of your position - so be it.

I have however followed the link. The commentary makes assertions that cannot be supported by the OFT statement. OFT statements are not the law, but let's assume the statement is correct - which in fact I think it is. It says:

We would object to a provision giving the landlord an excessive right to enter the rented property. 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.

The words I have put in italics are key.

Here is what the text looks like without those words:

We would object to a provision giving the landlord a right to enter the rented property. 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 intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without getting the tenant’s consent, except for good reason.

Reads differently, does it not?

So what does it mean? I think it means that the OFT consider that:

1. It is acceptable for a landlord to reserve a reasonable right to enter property.

2. Intrusion is acceptable if warranted.

3. Inspections are acceptable if reasonable notice is given.

[Rozza]

Totally agree no point going on and on, so i just comment on one of your points and leave it at that

3. Inspections are acceptable if reasonable notice is given.

Namely, Inspection not viewing, Also the term says "good reason" and as far as a lot of tenants are concerned, a viewing is not a good reason

Have a nice weekend

[Damocles]

"Inspection" does not equal "viewing"? Is that not splitting hairs? Anyway, "inspections" was a word I introduced, not the OFT. So going by their wording:

Change:

Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice

to read:

Landlords are not unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property on giving reasonable notice.

[Havoc]

Having just moved out of a rented property through an agency, I will give you my experiences on viewings during the final month:

In total they had about 7 viewings during the last month of my tenancy. I was never asked about any of them, only told.

On 2 occasions I was left a voicemail late in the afternoon and told that people were viewing the next morning (not 24 hours notice).

In 1 case the viewer rescheduled for an hour earlier, I was never told and agency + viewer just turned up early and said sorry we have viewing (I refused to admit them).

Towards the end Agency got pushy and started requesting viewings on a Saturday with only an hours notice. Obviously I refused, but they said new tenant was desperate. Not my problem I said. (They said I should try to be helpful in spite of short notice).

This is a warning to all of you.....

NEVER EVER ALLOW VIEWINGS EVER.

[Rozza]

Some good points, the reason they said you should try to be helpful despite short notice is because they knew as well you as you did that they could do nothing about it, so they try to guilt you into it.

As an aside, i wouldnt say i agree with "NEVER EVER ALLOW VIEWINGS EVER", my landlord for instance is a decent bloke, we get along fine and if he wants viewings when i choose to move out then ill allow them if convenient. If he trys to up the rent (which i would refuse) thus making us give notice then id refuse and likewise if he issues notice then welcome to mr void.

I would say its all down to how well you get on with the landlord.

That said, if he allocates an agent to get a new tenant and they want viewings at short notice, well im afraid its 24 hours notice, at my convenience or nothing at all.