Frequent landlord inspections
Discussion
I'll try to be succinct. My brother in law privately rents a property (a house), which he has inhabited with his partner and their young child for a couple of years. It's a six monthly Assured Shorthold Tenancy. They had an issue last year when the landlord (who lives abroad) failed to pay the mortgage for a number of months and the bank began issuing notices to the property. He took this up with the landlord's UK agent (a 'letting company') and their response was to issue him with an inspection notice followed by a section 21. They gave the impression that the landlord was looking to sell to repay his debt.
As it happens, his mother (my mother in law) works for the local council in Landlord Licensing. She was aware the property was not licensed, as it is required to be, and as such the section 21 was invalid. The agency were told this, and consequently withdrew the s21 (which was, after all, invalid anyway) and began the process of belatedly registering the property with the local authority. This didn't put them in a very good mood!
Since then they have been harassing him with regular inspection notices, picking at trivial matters (that cupboard looks like it could do with painting, the grass looks a little long) and insisting on repeat inspections every eight to ten weeks. My brother in law has unfortunately suffered a mental breakdown and is under the care of his GP and community mental health team. He's not very able to cope at present, and asked the agency to belay their latest inspection. Their response was that he either lets them in, else they will 'just use a key and come in anyway'. I am fully aware this isn't legal, of course.
Today I spoke to them by phone on his behalf, informing them my brother in law was unable to deal with them at present (they're aware of his mental health issue), and stating that they had only recently inspected the property. The (rather rude) reply was they they 'need to keep on top of it' and that their standard practice is to inspect every three months at the most. She also added that he had 'already tried to rearrange once'. I pointed out that 10 weeks is rather pushing the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and he doesn't have to grant entry at all if that's his wish - so he can 'rearrange' all he likes. This prompted an indignant huff and an awkward moment's silence.
The retort was that they wanted to 'keep on top of all the rubbish at the rear'. I enquired as to what rubbish they were referring to, and the lady became awkward and said 'the grass looked a bit long and there were a few bin bags when we visited in November'. Yes, I said, he was half way through cutting the (small section of) grass and tidying the fallen leaves when you last came. That hardly qualifies for disrepair, nor falls under the state or repair of the property in relation to the Housing Act's right of access to inspect the property.
So alas, they are getting someone to 'ring me back' to discuss. I plan to tell them that (1) threatening a tenant with explicitly unauthorised entry via a key is illegal, and could be construed as harassment especially in light of his mental health issues; (2) they can inspect the property at the end of the current six month assured shorthold lease to give his mental health time to recover (he's just been given new medication; and (3) in light of their threats to prompt illegal entry I will be changing his locks and they can either have the key at the end of the tenancy, or have the old lock restored at their discretion. This will all be followed up in writing (signed by my brother in law) of course.
While I also appreciate the landlord's right to keep his property in good order, this really isn't applicable in this case. He's abroad, the property was only inspected and agreed to be in good order ten weeks ago, and the agents are happy to let structural repairs drag on for months despite piling on pressure to their tenant over trivialities such as kitchen cupboards 'looking like they need a paint'. Talking of which since the paint isn't damaged and is simply the subject of (many years, by the looks of things) wear and tear, I would further argue that if they hold such an opinion then the landlord ought to be paying for the decoration to be refreshed.
Does this sound reasonable? Anything I missed or can add? While it would be unfortunate for them to move house, this isn't an undue worry and half expected at the end of the tenancy anyway, once the property is lawfully licensed with the local authority. My main priority is to stop the overly frequent spurious inspections and threats of entry which are worsening his mental health. Basically I just want to check I'm correct and find out if there's anything else I've missed before dealing with them on his behalf again.
Thanks.
As it happens, his mother (my mother in law) works for the local council in Landlord Licensing. She was aware the property was not licensed, as it is required to be, and as such the section 21 was invalid. The agency were told this, and consequently withdrew the s21 (which was, after all, invalid anyway) and began the process of belatedly registering the property with the local authority. This didn't put them in a very good mood!
Since then they have been harassing him with regular inspection notices, picking at trivial matters (that cupboard looks like it could do with painting, the grass looks a little long) and insisting on repeat inspections every eight to ten weeks. My brother in law has unfortunately suffered a mental breakdown and is under the care of his GP and community mental health team. He's not very able to cope at present, and asked the agency to belay their latest inspection. Their response was that he either lets them in, else they will 'just use a key and come in anyway'. I am fully aware this isn't legal, of course.
Today I spoke to them by phone on his behalf, informing them my brother in law was unable to deal with them at present (they're aware of his mental health issue), and stating that they had only recently inspected the property. The (rather rude) reply was they they 'need to keep on top of it' and that their standard practice is to inspect every three months at the most. She also added that he had 'already tried to rearrange once'. I pointed out that 10 weeks is rather pushing the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and he doesn't have to grant entry at all if that's his wish - so he can 'rearrange' all he likes. This prompted an indignant huff and an awkward moment's silence.
The retort was that they wanted to 'keep on top of all the rubbish at the rear'. I enquired as to what rubbish they were referring to, and the lady became awkward and said 'the grass looked a bit long and there were a few bin bags when we visited in November'. Yes, I said, he was half way through cutting the (small section of) grass and tidying the fallen leaves when you last came. That hardly qualifies for disrepair, nor falls under the state or repair of the property in relation to the Housing Act's right of access to inspect the property.
So alas, they are getting someone to 'ring me back' to discuss. I plan to tell them that (1) threatening a tenant with explicitly unauthorised entry via a key is illegal, and could be construed as harassment especially in light of his mental health issues; (2) they can inspect the property at the end of the current six month assured shorthold lease to give his mental health time to recover (he's just been given new medication; and (3) in light of their threats to prompt illegal entry I will be changing his locks and they can either have the key at the end of the tenancy, or have the old lock restored at their discretion. This will all be followed up in writing (signed by my brother in law) of course.
While I also appreciate the landlord's right to keep his property in good order, this really isn't applicable in this case. He's abroad, the property was only inspected and agreed to be in good order ten weeks ago, and the agents are happy to let structural repairs drag on for months despite piling on pressure to their tenant over trivialities such as kitchen cupboards 'looking like they need a paint'. Talking of which since the paint isn't damaged and is simply the subject of (many years, by the looks of things) wear and tear, I would further argue that if they hold such an opinion then the landlord ought to be paying for the decoration to be refreshed.
Does this sound reasonable? Anything I missed or can add? While it would be unfortunate for them to move house, this isn't an undue worry and half expected at the end of the tenancy anyway, once the property is lawfully licensed with the local authority. My main priority is to stop the overly frequent spurious inspections and threats of entry which are worsening his mental health. Basically I just want to check I'm correct and find out if there's anything else I've missed before dealing with them on his behalf again.
Thanks.
rainmakerraw said:
My main priority is to stop the overly frequent spurious inspections and threats of entry which are worsening his mental health.
Change the locks. They'll only find out if they try to enter without his permission, and so long as the locks are changed back at the end of the tenancy, there's absolutely no legal issue.They're clearly trying to hassle him into moving. The easiest solution may just be to do exactly that.
TooMany2cvs said:
Change the locks. They'll only find out if they try to enter without his permission, and so long as the locks are changed back at the end of the tenancy, there's absolutely no legal issue.
They're clearly trying to hassle him into moving. The easiest solution may just be to do exactly that.
Certainly, and he would be happy to do so. Unfortunately he lives in an area of high social housing stock and limited opportunity to rent privately. He can easily get a social housing tenancy, if he has a valid section 21 (which he didn't last time). As such that isn't a worry, but he's not in much of a position to find another privately rented property at present. That's what I meant when I said another s21 isn't a concern (it leads to an almost immediate tenancy in a new build house from the social landlord), but at the same time he's in no fit state to be mooching around letting agencies and trying to find a new private landlord at present. It's all a little awkward/delicate unfortunately.They're clearly trying to hassle him into moving. The easiest solution may just be to do exactly that.
More than anything I'm hoping to clarify my understanding of their access rights is correct, or perhaps more pointedly that his rights to quiet enjoyment allow him to delay their aggressive inspections until the end of the tenancy in three months (bearing in mind the last inspection was only 10 weeks ago anyway). Thanks for replying.
Sounds stressful for your BIL. If he is unwell then even more stressful for him.
As a letting agent myself. Make sure you only deal with the agency in writing/email so you have a formal copy. don't discuss things on the phone.
Inspections are part and parcel but it sounds like they are doing too much especially taking into account the BIL ill health and disability.
We would inspect 3 times in the first year and then either yearly or twice in one year after that if a tenant stays on longer then a year. Their concerns about the garden/rubbish at the rear unless justified is just rubbish. They can see this without coming into the property?
They cannot enter the property if you write to withdraw your consent. If they are going to give you notice then confirm in writing that you are happy with 1x inspection every 3 months and set a date and time in advance. You can change the locks provided you give them the keys at the end.
It sounds like they are harassing the BIL - put this in a letter to the agents. The agents also have to belong to a redress scheme if you think they are harassing. May have to go to court if not allowing quiet enjoyment - can threaten this in any event and ask for compensation even if you don't go through with it.
BIL is going to have to leave as some stage. If he needs the s21 notice before he will get rehoused then so be it. Have a talk with the council they may assist earlier if he is ill/disability.
As a letting agent myself. Make sure you only deal with the agency in writing/email so you have a formal copy. don't discuss things on the phone.
Inspections are part and parcel but it sounds like they are doing too much especially taking into account the BIL ill health and disability.
We would inspect 3 times in the first year and then either yearly or twice in one year after that if a tenant stays on longer then a year. Their concerns about the garden/rubbish at the rear unless justified is just rubbish. They can see this without coming into the property?
They cannot enter the property if you write to withdraw your consent. If they are going to give you notice then confirm in writing that you are happy with 1x inspection every 3 months and set a date and time in advance. You can change the locks provided you give them the keys at the end.
It sounds like they are harassing the BIL - put this in a letter to the agents. The agents also have to belong to a redress scheme if you think they are harassing. May have to go to court if not allowing quiet enjoyment - can threaten this in any event and ask for compensation even if you don't go through with it.
BIL is going to have to leave as some stage. If he needs the s21 notice before he will get rehoused then so be it. Have a talk with the council they may assist earlier if he is ill/disability.
Thanks again guys.
Yes the s21 is checked, as we found out last time. The housing association were provided a copy of the original (invalid) one, and their first recourse was to contact the Housing Options team at the council and check that the notice was lawful, and whether the property was currently licensed. My brother in law was hoping they'd just take it at face value and allow him to move.
Interestingly I am currently reading his tenancy agreement. It states that the tenant is 'Not to change the locks to the outer doors of the Property without the written consent of the Landlord...'. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, anyone?
Still waiting for the call back, but I think I'll simply state that on reflection and having gathered more information from him about the history that he no longer wishes to reschedule this week's visit. Instead he wishes to cancel it, in light of their very recent inspection and his right to the covenant of quiet enjoyment. They are free to arrange to inspect at the end of the lease in three months (when he expects to be evicted anyway, so no loss there). The rest will be put in writing for their consideration, and all further correspondence is to be made via the same.
I don't think either party can go wrong with that.
Yes the s21 is checked, as we found out last time. The housing association were provided a copy of the original (invalid) one, and their first recourse was to contact the Housing Options team at the council and check that the notice was lawful, and whether the property was currently licensed. My brother in law was hoping they'd just take it at face value and allow him to move.
Interestingly I am currently reading his tenancy agreement. It states that the tenant is 'Not to change the locks to the outer doors of the Property without the written consent of the Landlord...'. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, anyone?
Still waiting for the call back, but I think I'll simply state that on reflection and having gathered more information from him about the history that he no longer wishes to reschedule this week's visit. Instead he wishes to cancel it, in light of their very recent inspection and his right to the covenant of quiet enjoyment. They are free to arrange to inspect at the end of the lease in three months (when he expects to be evicted anyway, so no loss there). The rest will be put in writing for their consideration, and all further correspondence is to be made via the same.
I don't think either party can go wrong with that.
> As it happens, his mother (my mother in law) works for the local council in Landlord Licensing. She was aware the property was not licensed, as it is required to be, and as such the section 21 was invalid.
Do landlords/properties have to be registered? Is this in England or Scotland?
Do landlords/properties have to be registered? Is this in England or Scotland?
creampuff said:
> As it happens, his mother (my mother in law) works for the local council in Landlord Licensing. She was aware the property was not licensed, as it is required to be, and as such the section 21 was invalid.
Do landlords/properties have to be registered? Is this in England or Scotland?
Do landlords/properties have to be registered? Is this in England or Scotland?
The Council said:
Liverpool’s Landlord Licensing Scheme means that from 1st April 2015 all private landlords in the city must obtain a licence for each of their rented properties.
The scheme is being introduced in Liverpool under the government’s selective licensing laws and signing up for it is compulsory.
More info here.The scheme is being introduced in Liverpool under the government’s selective licensing laws and signing up for it is compulsory.
creampuff said:
> As it happens, his mother (my mother in law) works for the local council in Landlord Licensing. She was aware the property was not licensed, as it is required to be, and as such the section 21 was invalid.
Do landlords/properties have to be registered? Is this in England or Scotland?
only some areas. But expect it for all as its another cash cow for the council.Do landlords/properties have to be registered? Is this in England or Scotland?
superlightr said:
only some areas. But expect it for all as its another cash cow for the council.
Generally I would be the first to agree, but there's a lot more to it than that in reality. The registration is fairly trivial, the sums small, and it's more about having enforcement powers (my MIL had to attend PACE training) for prosecuting slum landlords, overcrowded HMOs and so on. You wouldn't believe some of the stories!rainmakerraw said:
Generally I would be the first to agree, but there's a lot more to it than that in reality. The registration is fairly trivial, the sums small,
It seems that Liverpool will charge landlords either £200, £300 or £400 for a registration which lasts a maximum of 5 years. That is hardly trivial. rainmakerraw said:
When rent per property hovers around £500 per month on average. O the horror.
You clearly do not see £400 as expensive. It is expensive. That is about a month of rent after agent expenses over 5 years. That is assuming you get the full 5 years, which you won't if there is a sale of the property. So about 1/60th of net rental income goes into what appears to be a useless council scheme which does not enable any further enforcement powers other than what are already in place. Since this thread started, I've read up on the Scotland system, which has been in place longer and appears to be a failure with about half of rented properties unregistered and so it at best an optional tax on some landlords who choose to pay.Edited by creampuff on Wednesday 15th February 11:44
TooMany2cvs said:
Cobblers. £400 over 5yrs is £6.67/month.
As I pointed out, it is about a month of net rent. I take it you would be quite happy to lose a month of your salary every 5 years on top of the existing deductions to fund something of dubious value. What a lot of cash you have to throw away.
creampuff said:
As I pointed out, it is about a month of net rent.
I take it you would be quite happy to lose a month of your salary every 5 years on top of the existing deductions to fund something of dubious value. What a lot of cash you have to throw away.
One can hardly equate a month's rental on a single rental property over the course of five years with one's regular salary. One chooses whether to rent out a property for profit, assuming all inherent legal responsibilities, but one generally can't choose whether or not to work for a living. In any case yes, it's perfectly reasonable to, for example, be expected to pay ~£5 a month to maintain a professional membership (Gas Safe, SRA, BPS, GMC, whatever), insurance or licensing scheme (in regulated industries) etc if that's your chosen course of profession. I take it you would be quite happy to lose a month of your salary every 5 years on top of the existing deductions to fund something of dubious value. What a lot of cash you have to throw away.
Regardless, with the greatest of respect I really could do with advice on the topic at hand so could we please not derail the thread too much while the issue is still ongoing? You are of course free to start another to discuss the matter without clouding this one. No offence intended, but I don't want to lose the thread down a slippery slope while the original issue is ongoing. Cheers.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff