Here is a question to the blog clinic from Denise who is a landlord
I am a landlord renting out my house to three young professional sharers who have been living there for about 6 months. There have been very few maintenance problems but each time I have had problems getting my contractors into the property because the tenants are so inflexible and will not leave a key with my agent.
Most recently they reported that the toilet flush had failed, I have been trying to get my plumber there but the tenants want him to go after 7.00pm or on a Saturday. If he goes then, he will charge me more. The tenants mostly communicate by smartphone email, this is the latest
“Denise. We have been waiting over 2 weeks for our toilet to be sorted out. We are using a bucket as a flush which is not an acceptable way of living not to mention embarrassing when visitors come to the house. As we have said many times before we all have full time jobs and do not have time to meet contractors. Also we do not want strangers coming into the house when we are not there unless they are accompanied by you. Or if you are happy to pay one of us a days wages to sit in and wait for the plumber we may be able to come to some arrangement. Whether the plumber charges you extra for working late is not an excuse for neglecting your duties as landlord.”
The tenancy agreement clearly states that the tenants have to permit contractors access.
Are my tenants being totally unreasonable? I don’t feel that I should back down and pay extortionate plumbers rates just for the sake of their convenience
Answer
To answer this question properly we really need to see your tenancy agreement and what is says about access, but (subject to this) I think your tenants are being unreasonable.
I suggest you go back to the tenants and point out that their tenancy agreement provides for them to allow access to contractors for repair work.
Say that this does not entitle them to limit access to out of office hours but that if they insist on this, you will hold them responsible for the additional charges incurred by you.
Then, if they refuse to pay this, which they probably will, you can see about deducting the money from their deposit at the end of the tenancy (make sure you keep full records of the extra costs incurred by you).
I cannot guarantee that this would be allowed by an adjudicator if the claim was challenged but I think there is a reasonable chance of this – depending on what the precise wording is in your tenancy agreement clause.
If you follow Tessa’s suggestion of withholding costs from the deposit, as she says it all depends on what the tenancy agreement states your obligations are and what your tenants’ obligations are. This is the key point an adjudicator would be looking for.
I couldn’t say what an adjudicator would decide, but do make sure you keep records of communications with tenants and receipts/quotes which have a breakdown showing the additional cost of getting contractors in the evening. Should the matter go to dispute this evidence would be very important.
What about the statutory obligations though? Section 11 Landlord and Tenant act 1985.
I’m not defending the tenant’s actions here, I too think they should cut a bit of slack and be reasonable.
But my open question is ‘does lack of access get the landlord out of their statutory duties’? When councils and housing associations hit access problems they go to court for Interim Relief Orders and pass costs of access onto the tenants.
However, in this case the tenant isnt refusing access point blank, just access at a particular time so would a judge even grant interim relief?
Would the tenancy deposit adjudication panel deem the excess costs of weekend or evening call out charges recoverable?
In my day job I can take a day or a couple of hours here and there so its never a problem but some employers only allow annual leave in block, so taking time off isnt always possible. Also with such repair jobs often the only timeslot you get is ‘Between 8 and 1pm’ or some such, not a set time. Should the tenant be financially prejudiced for having an inflexible employment contract? What if they dont get paid for hours they dont work? Should the landlord reimburse the tenant?
This seemingly simple case is an ideal example of the legal minefields that landlords find themselves embroiled in on a daily basis over what looks like a more prosaic problem.
The blog theme this month being ‘Are you cut out to eb a landlord?’
I think these tenants are being totally unreasonable and it’s very rare that I don’t see the tenants point of view. I don’t understand why a very small percentage of tenants think they are exempt from any responsibility at all. Unless the job is an absolute emergency it is not unreasonable to expect that you might have to be available to let tradesman in during office hours if you don’t want an Agent to do it for you. It’s very inconvenient for anyone, homeowner or tenant to have to take time off work to let a tradesman in but that’s how life works. Appointments can usually be made for the first or last appointment of the day to minimise the inconvenience.
Smile, sympathise and put the rent up at the next opportunity.
An employer must allow an employee leave of absence from work for essential needs such as dentist appointments etc. A working toilet is an essential need and an employer will have to allow time off for one of them. The tenant(s) need to step up here and stop being silly. The Landlord in question needs to use good communication skills, deep breaths and a lot of patience and tact to bring this tenant down from stroppy mountain and work with him/her – they are both on the same side. If the tenants don’t want to allow access through the agent or landlord they are painting themselves into a corner and more time without a working toilet.
Thanks MCC that is a very useful point about employers obligations. Thank you.
Having done some employment law and having been a manager I would take a lot of convincing about an employers duty to be required to allow time off for a plumbers’ appointment.
In a employment situation where they have family friendly policies child care, hospital appointments of a fairly routine nature are likely to be allowed, but not necessarily with pay. Emergency situations that this would not in my opinion qualify for any rights.
In this era of temp contracts, zero hours contracts I doubt this would be a runner. At Amazon for example employees ‘earn’ 3 negative points for a half day off sick.
On the main issue this is something the three tenants should be able to arrange. The problem would have been fixed but for their lack of flexibility
To be fair I was playing Devil’s Advocate with my comments, but whilst i’m sure employment law would support what you say, in the real word what use is it?
In the same sense, as I was pointing out there and in my post yesterday about deposit protection issues, the law and people’s lives arent always helpful.
If the tenant has a crappy employer who refuses time off, this may well be a breach but redress would be lengthy and protracted and may simply result in sacking, albeit legally challengable but again through lengthy and protracted processes and all the tenant wants is her toilet seat fixed.
Zero hours contracts, which are becoming increasingly widespread is a further conundrum.
However, to re-state, the thrust of my argument is that what may be perceived as a fairly routine daily landlord tenant problem is fraught with legal problems on all sides when viewed in that light.
Check out the 12,000+ bits of case law in ‘The Housing Law Casebook by Nic Madge’ if you want to see what being a landlord is really about
I thought that this situation might be useful to suggest a typical situation where the proposed retaliatory eviction law could not be used by a obstructive tenant.
If a landlord in this circumstance decided to issue a S21 and then these tenants complained to the Env Health Dept about a disrepair and claimed it was retaliatory, I would not expect that the Council would act to prevent an eviction.
1 An EHO is not obliged to issue an Improvement or other notice merely because a tenant makes a complaint.
2 The EHO having received a complaint would as a matter of course contact a landlord to enquire about the issue. If in this scenario the landlord explained that they had contacted a plumber but had been unable to gain access at a mutual time.
3 Indeed if the tenants asked the EHO to inspect they are likely to get a flea in their ear and told that if they make a complaint they must allow reasonable access and that staff will not do an out of hours visit for something that is not urgent.
Hence the Council would be able to say they received a complaint but do not intend either to visit or issue a notice. Therefore the S21 would not be set aside. I would expect that Councils will have standard form letters to issue to both parties in that situation. Therefore a “bad” tenant would not be able to abuse the law
The alternative you have offered is that your agent will accompany the plumber. That is (imho) a reasonable alternative.
That’s what you pay your agent for. If they are unable to be there, refusing to allow access when the agent will accompany the plumber is unreasonable. A homeowner would not have that option.
Any reason Denise cannot accompany the contractor? After all how many posters would be happy with an unknown contractor entering their home unaccompanied?
MMC comment surprised me too so I agree with Colin Lunt. Time off is for essentials involving personal health, not because the employee is being arrogant with their Landlord and self inflicting problems. Pay them for taking a day off indeed.
Why only after 7pm – do all three work all day every week day? HB welcome is right I’d go further and serve notice on them if property is easy to let.
Anyway main point is Ben’s and there are 4 useful statutory references where the tenants have to allow access whether they are present or not, as follows:-
section 11(6) L&T 1985 – this links in with your 85 Act comment
sections 16, 29 and 116 of the Housing Act 1988 all further develop Landlord rights.
Hello
I am reminded about a very funny comment by our plumber (now retired) to a tenant some years ago when arranging access (I forget what the problem was).
Tenant: “I will be at home after work from 5.30pm onwards”
Plumber: “so will I”
I still laugh at that one!
Adrian
It sounds like the home owner in question got the short straw..
On to the question at hand here.
Does the tenant have the right to deny access to a representative of the landlord, acting under his name and directive ?
If he has, doesn’t then the responsibility of handling the plumbers fall in their hands ?
Let’s say I’m the landlord and I’ve scheduled an appointment with a plumber for 11:30 am. Along him will be my professional representative as to monitor and guarantee everything is in check once he is done.
The tenant misses the appointment or straight out rejects it without a valid and respectable reason – “Also we do not want strangers coming into the house when we are not there unless they are accompanied by you.”
In the above case, wouldn’t it be perfectly reasonable to charge the tenant with the extra costs of an evening service / compensation for me taking time off work to handle things / them taking time off their work (under their expense) to meet the plumber ?
If you are to put an odd and unreasonable condition to an ordinary situation, wouldn’t the responsibility of handling things be transferred to you ..?
Plus, I think that under “…has to provide access for maintenance and repairs…”, I don’t think it’s meant they can actually choose who to provide access for.
I personally believe that no consultant or authoritative figure or organization will entertain a complaint for lack of maintenance, if the tenants file one, under the give circumstances.
If the landlord is still following this blog, I’d advice him to put a foot on the ground and stop allowing his spoiled tenants to get on his nerves. He’s being tolerant enough to even consider their prickly desires.
I wish all my landlords were more like him, honestly..
Colin Lunt,
You underestimate the tenancies reform bill.
All the tenants would need to do to delay eviction is state on the defence form that this is a revenge eviction in response to them making a relevant complaint to the landlord -1 (3)(a).
They have subsequently made a complaint to the local housing authority and are awaiting a decision from them 1 (4)(a).
The section 21 process is then halted until the very busy EHO can get round to processing their complaint.
If they then wish to delay things further, they can claim they have acted reasonably and allowed access and that it is the landlord being awkward and refusing to carry out repairs. The EHO is then stuck in a He said/She said argument.
The 3 tenants seem intelligent and articulate and could well put up a credible and plausible case.
If they can convince the EHO they have acted reasonably and there is a relevant complaint they can delay eviction for at least a further 6 months.
These aren’t even “bad” tenants, a genuinely bad tenant would really be able to abuse this if it should come into effect.
There is little doubt that subject to contract the landlord has right of access and also under statute. The issue has been hotly debated on here previously of how that right can be enforced.
Council and HAs usually seek an order from the County Court for access at an agreed time if a tenant for example refuses to allow a Gas Safety inspection. As TROs we would advise a landlord the same, but in doing so we would also advise a tenant that they could expect a possible huge costs order by sticking to their ground of refusal of access other than when they want it.