A "stranger" has a key to my house. Martin and Co don't care.

Aldav said:
@5UB
The landlord, or his agents, can under s11.6 of the LTA1985, for "inspection" purposes provided they do it at a reasonable time, and having given at least 24 hours notice, in writing.
Click to expand...

The key point is 'in writing'. Guy wasn't notified, so forget the rest of s11.
 
Great post above with some legal details BUT as a landlord I'd be more than happy to tell you if I had entered your property while you were absent and would expect exactly the same of the agency I use.

In your position if immediately change the lock (£20 for a straight replacement, will take you 30 seconds) and inform the agency that you've done so until the matter is resolved. Give them a key for this new lock at the earliest possible time.

Two possible outcomes id make clear to the agency:
1) They let you know that either they or the landlord entered the property and for what reason. You should immediately install the old lock.

2) They have no knowledge of anyone entering the property. You get them to install new locks at their cost.
 
Aldav said:
...
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious that the landlord hasn't provided sufficient notice per the law/tenancy agreement, nor is it emergency access for essential repairs (e.g. water leak).

Someone is entering the property and the agency is refusing to co-operate. He is well within his rights to change the locks and provide the keys to the agency within a reasonable period of time to protect his assets.

It's a case of using common sense. If anything crazy happened he would have more than enough to support his case.
 
campbell said:
The key point is 'in writing'. Guy wasn't notified, so forget the rest of s11.
Click to expand...
As I said, there's some bad advice in the thread, including the claim "legally" that nobody has a right to enter in the tenant's absence. Which is incorrect.

In this specific case, suppose for instance, a letter was sent. It may have got lost in the post, or 5UB forgot it arrived a month ago, or it's mixed up with free local papers, or the dog ate it, or it's in the pile of mail waiting to be opened, or .... whatever.

The landlord therefore may have visited in the good faith belief that notice had been given. In which case, all that's going on is extremely poor service by the agent for not getting back to the tenant after a couple of days and two or three calls.

As I said, several times, it's not a black and white situation and the exact legal position depends on his exact circumstances. There are, however, repeated claims of his right to do this or that. My point was that there are "potential" legal problems if he does, because many of those claims are incorrect.
 
I agree. To simplify, change the locks anyway. SUB, I also lock my front door in the same way...i.e. just close it. So I can tell when my landlord has been too coz he locks in the same way. Just so happens my landlord is my mate and always tells me when he's coming round so no issues there. :)
 
Kemik said:
I think it's pretty obvious that the landlord hasn't provided sufficient notice per the law/tenancy agreement, nor is it emergency access for essential repairs (e.g. water leak).

Someone is entering the property and the agency is refusing to co-operate. He is well within his rights to change the locks and provide the keys to the agency within a reasonable period of time to protect his assets.

It's a case of using common sense. If anything crazy happened he would have more than enough to support his case.
Click to expand...
I said people here wouldn't like it.

5UB, I've told you in some detail what the position is. But if you feel you'd rather go with the concensus, I'm quite happy to be ignored. Just be aware that if it does turn nasty, which it's not likely to, "it's common sense" is not the test the judge will apply.

The risk, and I put it no stronger than that, is eviction proceedings.
 
Aldav said:
As I said, there's some bad advice in the thread, including the claim "legally" that nobody has a right to enter in the tenant's absence. Which is incorrect.

In this specific case, suppose for instance, a letter was sent. It may have got lost in the post, or 5UB forgot it arrived a month ago, or it's mixed up with free local papers, or the dog ate it, or it's in the pile of mail waiting to be opened, or .... whatever.

The landlord therefore may have visited in the good faith belief that notice had been given. In which case, all that's going on is extremely poor service by the agent for not getting back to the tenant after a couple of days and two or three calls.

As I said, several times, it's not a black and white situation and the exact legal position depends on his exact circumstances. There are, however, repeated claims of his right to do this or that. My point was that there are "potential" legal problems if he does, because many of those claims are incorrect.
Click to expand...

Are you a landlord? You have out of date views of the law. The landlord can NOT just enter. You can even as a tenant refuse entry when they HAVE given 24 hours notice. It's actually very much in favour of a tenant with regards to access.
 
Letting agency/landlord do need permission and need to give you notice to the point of an exact day when they're wanting to access the property by either phone, letter, or email. If phone, I believe these are recorded for their sake (as stated in my previous contract with the agency I was using). At my previous place, the agency called once to let me know the landlord wanted to check on the house, I said that nobody would be there on the date he wanted to make a quick visit and to rearrange to another date, where I would be present. They don't have a choice.

Letting themselves in (if it is the agency or landlord) is a serious breach of trust and (and law) and as worrying as it sounds it's extremely rare that either an agency or landlord would be that stupid.

I would honestly enquire about lock change asap and pretty much demand it and set up a couple of ip cameras that can store to cloud.
 
Last edited:
Probably been mentioned, but if you can contact the landlord directly do that, your letting agency are clearly incompetent.

Failing that, email them, write them a letter. I would also go through your tenancy agreement to see if they can change the locks for safety concerns or something.
 
I survived!

The agency seem to be more pro-active this morning. I called them at 9AM. They have told me that are going to get in touch with the landlord, and make sure the locks are changed as soon as possible. - Seems like as soon as I mention the word police, they take it more seriously.

They said they would give me a call back again, I know they never the last few days, but the lady on the phone actually seemed like she cared, and seemed like she is going to do something about it.

I will call back at 1PM if I hear nothing by then.
 
just saw this, really odd situation and I agree with a previous post.

New contract/lease should be new locks.
There's no way of telling how many previous tenants have made how many copies.

If they don't comply today, new cylinder and invoice them tbh
 
Change the locks 5UB then give a copy to the letting agent.

If they twist - and the shouldn't - tell them your concerns and you did it not only to protect your belongings etc but that of the landlord.
 
jaybee said:
Are you a landlord? You have out of date views of the law. The landlord can NOT just enter. You can even as a tenant refuse entry when they HAVE given 24 hours notice. It's actually very much in favour of a tenant with regards to access.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

What I said was that the landlord, under certain circumstances, has a "right" to enter. And he does. The issue is how he enforces that, and whether the specific circumstances justify it. The LTA grants a right, and the Housing Act embeds an implied term in tenancy agreements. Many tenancy agreements also have an explicit clause.

If, in the past, access has been granted after notice, then the landlord is quite entitled to follow a course of dealing, and enter in the tenants absence. They have a "legal" right to do so.

Also, if the reason and circumstance of the required entry meet either LTA terms, or explicit contract terms, and are reasonable, then a landlord can go to court for an injunction. If the landlord's actions are reasonable, then it's likely an injunction will be granted and as the tenant is in breach of contract, is likely to get costs awarded against them.

However .... as I said in my original post,
The landlord, therefore, has some rights of access but it's very limited. You have a considerable degree of rights to keep them out, but it's not absolute.
Click to expand...
Just because a tenancy agreement contains a clause granting access doesn't automatically mean it's enforceable. Unfair and unreasonable clauses are likely to be void. And as I said, tenants have rights too, not least of which is quiet enjoyment.

Again, as I said, the legal situation is far from simple, and much of the advice on what "rights" exist are simply wrong, and carried legal risks.

As a pragmatic matter, my advice to landlords would be never to enter without explicit permission. Doing so carries risks of complications, too. But the "right" to enter exists, and can be enforced. The distinction is between what is legal, and what is advisable. Short of court injunctions, actions like changing locks are risking the landlord/tenant relationship deteriorating unnecessarily, and they often aren't great to begin with, and could lead to steps to terminate the tenancy.

As it looks like 5UB has finally managed to get the agency to pay attention, it all looks a academic now anyway. I've said what I've said and I'm not going to keep going over it correcting misinterpretations of it. I should have listened to my inner voice and not commented in the first place.
 
They have got back to me via Twitter. - I've highlighted to them my concerns there too.

The incident happened on Monday, I notified them on Tuesday, and we're on Thursday...
 
Aldav said:
I said people here wouldn't like it.
Click to expand...

It is good to understand the legal aspects, but you posted a very "lawyer" reply. It's a bit like in business, Accountants take what the Lawyers say and give commercial advice. If people listened to the Lawyers all of the time they wouldn't leave their home.

The best thing to do in this case is exactly what 5UB has done. Maybe I would have changed the locks sooner but he has never done that before. Sounds like it's getting sorted now anyway.
 
After changing your locks don't leave your keys lying around at work for xxxxx to 'borrow' them again :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom