Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Eviction notice - help needed
Options
Comments
-
Thanks again guys. We gave our permission for the plumber to enter, but we requested advance notice of this - which never received.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 18024
You could get on to the estate agent and get them to confirm they said you could use the attic as a room instead of the box room.0 -
Even with repairs and work being carried out by tradespeople the landlord still must get permission before entering the property. Tenant does not know the workers but also does not know the landlord who might also steal from them or go through the tenants belongings and sniff their drawers!The issue may seem fairly clear cut, but none of us know for sure. We dont know what arrangement or agreement existed with the tenant regarding moving in or inspection visits or with regard to repairs.
It seems reasonable the landlord responded promptly to a snag list and would want to go along with a trades person, in the least it protects the tenant if the landlord doesnt know the tradesperson and its backup for the trades person that they are not accused of taking anything if the landlord is there, perhaps the landlord wanted to see what the problem was and get it fixed and assess the severity of it too and a camera might be required for records to determine and record the cause.
I see no evidence of anyone being "moved in"!What is clear is the tenant moved in people that are not on the lease, certainly not a good idea ever, but in under a months residence, its obvious to see why the landlord might be unhappy, to add to that, the landlord is legally entitled to evict a tenant in the first six months without any reason, but what reasonable landlord would do that? requiring the money for rental, its not known if the landlord isnt registered, but for certain the tenant hasnt put them in the best situation either.
As a tenant you live in the property as if it were your own but are not allowed change the layout or break through walls etc without the consent of the Landlord.
OP stated they were told to use the attic by the agent, if the Landlord didnt want this room used it should have been blocked off or put beyond use by taking up the floor and removing the fuses for the attic.I wouldnt say there is any limitations on a landlord taking photographs of their property as they could be taking it along for the reported issues, besides how else do they prove any damage if its put to insurance, but they found a bed in an attic room that wasnt a bedroom and then moved people in too into the bargain. That could invalidate the property insurance and that itself is a breach of the tenancy act.
If the tenant declines to be evicted, it would be on their heads on top of everything else and that is bad advice you are giving as its contrary to the law.
Having said a landlord could evict inside 6 months without a reason or even cause, they could still evict for moving in extra people even after 6 months as its a breach of the tenancy agreement if those people werent on the lease.
While it may look suspicious it is not really backed up by facts like Fact: the landlord entered illegally and took pictures as well as going through the clothes in the attic, fact: there is a lease in effect despite the landlord and agents attempts to deny the tenant their rights.OP, Id go with begging bowl in hand, apologise, move the bed out and the extra people and hope the landlord agrees to allow you to stay, No one needs to be in a dispute and its very easy for people to get fired up and advise you of such when they dont have to go through the hassle themselves, seems like a good landlord responding to snags promptly and discovered some breaches.
Be honest, what was the intention for these visitors, when you made extra space for them by occupying another room as a bedroom? it looks suspicious to me.
If I have someone staying over I will set up a bed in my spare room for them, there is a dismantled bed and I will assemble it and clear out the spare room even if the person is only expected to stay one night. It is not the landlords business or concern if I do this and if I have visitors but in this case it seems tha OP was told to use this attic room by the agent.Grandpa Hassan wrote: »The OP has converted a room to a bedroom, and had someone staying in it. As a LL, supposedly for someone staying 2 days. That would just look like someone had been moved in. A bf / gf staying is one thing, or a mate on a couch. But setting up a spare bedroom suggests more than a 2 day arrangement.
If went to the PTRB, the LL would be fined for illegal every, but suspect that the eviction would be upheld. The tenant would have to argue the case. And converting the room compromises the argument that it was just for a stay over0 -
A few minor points.
The tenant wrote to the LL asking him to fix some problems, it was a serious plumbing job according to the Tenant.
If permission was given for the plumber to enter the property , then how was the property to be entered unless the LL was there with a key to them them in.
Is it not reasonable to expect the LL to check out the problem first and see if a plumber is needed? I got a call from a tenant that the electrics in the kitchen were shot, turned out it was cheap bulbs been used-- an expensive way to find out would have been to call out a sparky.
To me the letter is an invitation to the LL to enter, Manners would dictate that a call to make sure that particular day was ok would have been in order. It would also be reasonable to inspect for any further water damage in the house.
Its a bit of an overreaction to call the LL a drawer sniffing c*$t when all they have done is to respond to a problem of a serious nature.
He shouldnt have taken pictures imo, and perhaps he has been stung in the past and just wants to get the official ball rolling in case there is a problem down the road.
I would suggest that the OP chats to the LL and see if they can sort this out in an adult manner.0 -
We are just getting the OPs version of events, from what I can make out it seems that the OP has moved extra tenants in, utilising the attic space as living quarters which is probably in contravention to the lease.
The landlord has spotted this when following up on the snag list the tenant gave him and decided that this contravention to the lease agreement is worrying enough that he does not want to have the OP as a tenant anymore - nothing worse than a bad start.
The op can of course go to the PRTB, however, if they are in contravention of the lease and the landlord follows the eviction process properly there might not be a case to be answered.
By the sounds of it the landlord seems to be decent enough, following up on a snag list with tradesmen and not allowing an attic as a living space.
Let me guess you are a landlord :rolleyes:
Your post smacks of an attitude a fair few landlrods show around here.
In the one post you manage to somehow figure out the lardlord is a decent enough sort whilst at the same time implying that the OP i.e. the tenant, is as good as lying by alluding to fact they are only giving "their version of events".
I could just as easily claim the landlord was a nosey perv and the OP is sound out.
Then we have yet more people suddently claiming that the tenant is subletting to all and sundry when they never mentioned anything of the sort.
AFAIK they actually said someone stayed a few days in the box room.
They never said they were living there.
OP should have talk with landlord and see if they can settle it.
If not amicable then no reason why OP should bend over backwards to accommodate someone who has no respect for their privacy.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Advertisement
-
Lots of strongly worded posts on both sides of this one. Hate to say it to the tenant-side but there's justifiable reason for the landlord to have entered the property here when there's a plumbing issue involved. Any solicitor worth their salt will find any line of communication from the tenant that involves water/leaking/plumbing and classify it as grounds for immediate repair to preserve the asset/living conditions.
Everything after this point becomes a bit grey. There's no rule against him taking pictures, especially given that the tenants provided him with a snag list of repairs. It's his duty to carry out these repairs if they're deemed to be needed so he has to inspect the property. He's already on site, this can be argued quite reasonably from his side.
The only thing he's playing silly with is the "not signing the lease" part. This is completely meaningless and he has more than enough grounds to issue an eviction given it's within the 6 month period.0 -
CatFromHue wrote: »You could get on to the estate agent and get them to confirm they said you could use the attic as a room instead of the box room.
Means nothing, if its not a room, and not advertised as a room, or for that number when it didnt have a bed in it, means it wasnt even let with that consideration. It makes it clear the landlord didnt intend for it to be a bedroom and if there is nothing in writing then thats as far as that goes. Next off, where did the bed come from? it wasnt in the tiny room as mentioned by the OP, so that means they brought this in themselves, looks like an intent to make a permanent arrangement not agreed to in a lease to me. The agent might have said that it could be used, but it means nothing if its not in the lease, the landlord needs no excuse to end this if its part 4 and if its fixed he has just cause..Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »Pretty sure this is only with period tenancies, not fixed term which is the norm (and I assume is the case with this tenancy). This is why the agent is saying the landlord didn't sign the lease in order to make it seem like there's only a periodic tenancy in effect.
You assume? Any breach of contract can end any tenancy at anytime, in a part 4 tenancy, the landlord is not required to give any reason within the first six months, this is the time for a landlord to spot trouble, if the guy wasnt on the ball about the plumbing, you'd have posters weighing in against him for not doing the repair or quickly enough, if I was the OP I'd steer away from threatening a certain course of action or hardline viewpoint as you will certainly end up out the door, apologise try extricate everyone from the situation, as they said, they couldnt afford to move, rectify the situation, get the extra person out and expect regular inspections. It doesnt look good though, regardless of what the circumstances are, a landlord going in there, seeing the extra bed is going to think, permanent fixture, extra person taking permanent residence, no permission, toilet leaked, through ceiling, place in a mess, and I cant see how people are coming down against the landlord other than a fixed blinkered view landlords bad tenants good mentality.The only thing he's playing silly with is the "not signing the lease" part. This is completely meaningless and he has more than enough grounds to issue an eviction given it's within the 6 month period.
If the estate agent signed the lease then he is the appointed "agent" as per the meaning in the tenancy act. As for the landlord not being PRTB registered as someone else mentioned, its barely a month, its possible they are, its in process or its getting done, guy seems proactive enough to me, and I think the PRTB will view this on its merits and lack of.
Looking at the facts that have been presented, I would suggest the OP steer away from the confrontational view as that will only reinforce the landlords opinion and he will then still be in his rights and maybe absolutely certain what he will do, sure maybe he wasnt happy OP, but maybe he's calmed down, Id be seriously annoyed if I discovered what he had, can anyone say they wouldnt, what was it? , sounds like a bit of a joke, plus, the place being in an absolute state a month in is not a good sign. If he has had a trouble free previous tenants and suddenly the toilet isnt working, leaks, and all the other stuff, I can absolutely say, Id be moving these people on before it gets worse.
I suggest crawling OP, seriously, you cannot say you're in the right here, are you even sure the toilet isnt your problem, these are not things that just go arse over elbow suddenly.
I just re read the OP,
If you werent happy with the "tiny" room, why did you take the property?
Also, items such as plumbing snags escalated to leaked through ceiling after lease signed, these are things both landlords and tenants need to confirm and sign off on with a detailed checklist before leaving each other to their respective landlord/tenant positions.0 -
For me the massive overstep by the landlord is entering and photographing bedrooms without the knowledge or consent of the tenants. If I came home to find that the landlord had been poking around my room I would be livid. it is really really unlikely that the plumbing issue affects all of the bedrooms and the attic, at least not in a standard three bed! Never mind the fact that tenants asked for advance notice and the landlord didn't give it.
The bedroom use etc is a different issue and the landlord would have spotted it anyways if he had organised a proper inspection. I'm still not sure if a jump to eviction would be warranted. I would have assumed that the tenants should be given notice to remedy the situation first. Could be wrong there though0 -
You assume? Any breach of contract can end any tenancy at anytime, in a part 4 tenancy, the landlord is not required to give any reason within the first six months, this is the time for a landlord to spot trouble
Except it's not a periodic or part 4 tenancy and any breach of contract won't end the lease. The PRTB will determine that.0 -
mirrorwall14 wrote: »For me the massive overstep by the landlord is entering and photographing bedrooms without the knowledge or consent of the tenants. If I came home to find that the landlord had been poking around my room I would be livid. it is really really unlikely that the plumbing issue affects all of the bedrooms and the attic, at least not in a standard three bed! Never mind the fact that tenants asked for advance notice and the landlord didn't give it.
The bedroom use etc is a different issue and the landlord would have spotted it anyways if he had organised a proper inspection. I'm still not sure if a jump to eviction would be warranted. I would have assumed that the tenants should be given notice to remedy the situation first. Could be wrong there though
I dont believe the OP said the landlord took pictures of the bedroom, the OP said "the landlord took loads of pictures, the bedrooms were untidy" you joined the two together, while its reasonable enough to think he did that it is still jumping to conclusion, but if the place is in a state a month in, along with some serious damage, it sounds like the landlord is warranted in taking pictures.
If the OP has invited the landlord to carry out repairs, and the OP by their own admission claimed they arent in the house much how does he expect the landlord to do the work or get it done?(OPs own explanation for the mess?? in work all the time, no one is doing more than 12 hours a day for more than a 5 days and most are doing less, ie the legal requirement, which I believe is on average 39-42 hrs and no more than 48hrs in a week, but thats an aside, still loads of time to clean up in the rest of the week or in time off the following week).
Op invited the landlord to complete the repairs and got caught on the hop.Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »Except it's not a periodic or part 4 tenancy and any breach of contract won't end the lease. The PRTB will determine that.
Its not a part 4 lease? can you clarify where the OP said they had a fixed term lease originally?
Breach of contract can end any lease, so your point is not relevant.
The thing is, landlord gets a snag list early on, OP doesnt mention the extent of the seriousness of the problem which if it was accurate should have been in his opening post.
If this is accurate, the house being in a mess only a month in, concurrent with some massive plumbing issue (leaking plumbing into the downstairs)
which seems to have caught the landlord by surprise but which he attends to promptly is slated here. Landlord discovers the place is a dump, extra bed in a room not suited or advertised as a bedroom, where its obvious someone else is staying in the "tiny" room, its very reasonable the landlord would want to try and trace the extent of any leak and was invited by the OPs snag list, if he didnt landlord would be in breach of his obligations, that he is complying discovers that in all likelyhood, his insurance would be invalidated, not to mention extra hazard of both fire or other safety concern of tenants keeping place in a mess, OP not happy caught out, as whether the person was staying for a few days as they claim, it looks remarkably suspicious along with other problems a month into a tenancy, sounds like problem tenants.
I would not stand by anyone who was doing wrong ie a landlord or tenant,
but some people here only see the landlord as being wrong and the tenant as always being right.
How often in anyones own home has the plumbing leaked through the ceiling compared to how often you hear this with rented properties? the ones where landlords are denied access to? the OP has either carelessly or unwittingly made themself look party to a reckless attitude to being responsible about looking after the property, its no wonder the landlord has taken a dim view of this and has decided enough is enough.
In many circumstances I couldnt care less if the landlord is dealt with properly, but this isnt one of them.
If it was me, Id be getting the plumber to investigate the cause of the major leak and ensure someone hadnt flushed a sock down the toilet, hopefully he's done a full handover checklist.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why couldn't the landlord go into the house. Is he just to take the ops word for the problems that were wrong?Maybe he fixed them himself and never even got a plumber. The op said there were multiple problems to fix. Maybe he had to go up to the attic to fix some of them or to turn off water to drain the tank. Maybe he had to check radiators in the bedrooms.
The fact is if the open converted a room into a bedroom it is them that is in the wrong. End of story.0 -
Its not a part 4 lease? can you clarify where the OP said they had a fixed term lease originally?
Breach of contract can end any lease, so your point is not relevant.
No it's not a part 4, that only happens after 6 months. And it's not a period tenancy. That rarely happens. 99% of everyone sign a year lease. It's just standard and you're arguing for the sake of it.
And no, breach of lease doesn't end the tenancy. If you don't pay the rent on time, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy though. If the landlord doesn't do maintenance, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy either. In the real world, these issues are addressed without going for the eviction notice.
We have to go on what information is given here. Sure, you can jump to conclusions and say the tenant probably had another bedroom set up permanently, just as I can assume the lease is fixed term. But all we can say is take it to the PRTB and plead the case and keep paying rent in the meantime. It should get the landlord looking for another solution in the meantime at least.0 -
If the op has a copy of the lease then they have a lease. If they don't have a copy of it then they don't have one. It is not jumping to a conclusion to say thay they converted a room to a bedroom. They admit they did it.0
-
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »No it's not a part 4, that only happens after 6 months. And it's not a period tenancy. That rarely happens. 99% of everyone sign a year lease. It's just standard and you're arguing for the sake of it.
And no, breach of lease doesn't end the tenancy. If you don't pay the rent on time, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy though. If the landlord doesn't do maintenance, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy either. In the real world, these issues are addressed without going for the eviction notice.
We have to go on what information is given here. Sure, you can jump to conclusions and say the tenant probably had another bedroom set up permanently, just as I can assume the lease is fixed term. But all we can say is take it to the PRTB and plead the case and keep paying rent in the meantime. It should get the landlord looking for another solution in the meantime at least.
Im not arguing for the sake of it, you brought up that its not part 4 or periodic??? if they dont have a fixed term lease and they have a lease, then the only possibility is that they have a part 4 lease. Even a fixed term lease has the rights of part 4.
However as it seems they dont have fixed lease, they appear to have a part 4 unless one or the other is clarified by the OP.
A part 4 (not a fixed term of whatever term) can be terminated in the first 6 months for any or no reason, no reason needs to be given.
You suggested any breach of contract wont determine that, in some regard that could be considered to be correct OR HAVE 2 MEANINGS, but Im unsure if you meant it as you worded it.
As it matters not what has occured, simply as a landlord could see all the mess and say, to hell with this lark, Im getting these people out of here now while I can, right, Im giving you notice when thats done off you go lads/ladies, no excuses, no explanations required on the landlords part whatsoever.
However if during the first six months there is a breach of contract, then the landlord could get rid of someone on that basis, but they dont really need to go into that who ha, as they are not under any obligation to explain themselves, this as far as I understand is to account and allow for the landlord to determine what kind of people his/her tenants are.
It really is the tenant that needs to provide the solution, as they can be out on their ear. The landlord can terminate the tenancy and cite those reasons, the PRTB rely and expect a landlord to provide evidence, in this case the landlord could proceed with the eviction process, open a case against the tenants for costs, ie damage to the property,
I suggest the tenant, makes good with the landlord, either finds out can the attic room be covered under insurance, if not, not to use it for that purpose.
If the OP or their co tenants werent happy with the tiny room they should not have taken the property, and this comes up time and again, where people sign leases and then complain in hindsight about obvious things which are plain to see.
Either they decided among themselves or were encouraged to use the attic as a bedroom by the agent, but if this isnt in the lease or what the owner/landlord wanted, do you really think the agent will admit that? if it was the case, but its as likely it isnt the case.
If this was one instance of a problem, but in the space of one month, maybe the landlord might have seen otherwise, but property damage, undetermined, however when you see messy people, that means a disregard for the property, its as likely this has somehow led to the toilet floding/leak problem, along with a person using an extra room/attic room discovered to not intended as a bedroom, probably not covered by insurance for the landlord, that alone is a breach of agreement in the tenancy act, for the tenants not to do anything by act or omission to invalidate the landlords insurance or to cause the landlord to be in breach of their obligations, one of which is to insure the property structurally.
Generally non payment of rent is the main breach and one under which tenants can hang themselves out to dry, however if someone is going to do something that invalidates the insurance on the asset (property) there is no point in having them there, the PRTB wont stand over any complaint of breaches of tenant obligations or invalidating insurance.
The best thing is for the OP to go to the landlord, ask for the landlord to rescind the notice to quit, act like grown ups, treat the place like they would treat friends home, which means look after it, expect after this regular inspections up till the six months, if after that if they act the dick thinking they have post 6 month protection, Id expect to have a case taken against them via the PRTB to quit.
Any other douchbaggery suggests the tenants to be wrong and the landlord to be right, but one month in how can anyone say whats occured is going to go down well? If you did that in any house, your mates or a relatives or anyones, you'd be rightly kicked out on the spot.
Letting comes with rights and obligations for both parties on the lease.0 -
I'd kick you out if I was your landlord.
You've given him snag lists, the place is in a mess after only a month, there's a stranger in one room and ye've moved a bed up and belongings up into the attic.(fire, insurance, potential claim, etc, etc)
I mean come on. Just move on and maybe treat your next house& landlord with a bit more respect. Even the fact that you're on here, trying to learn about your rights is fishy imho. Ffs!!0 -
The attic was converted to a room, obviously an extra bedroom, and the op was given permission to use it by the agent.
The landlord gave no proper notice of his visit nor did he give notice of any inspection. It is not reasonable to expect that the landlord might show up with the plumber unless he actually stated that he will be there. He entered the property without permission of the tenant and proceeded to further invade the tenants privacy by taking pictures.0 -
The attic was converted to a room, obviously an extra bedroom, and the op was given permission to use it by the agent.
The landlord gave no proper notice of his visit nor did he give notice of any inspection. It is not reasonable to expect that the landlord might show up with the plumber unless he actually stated that he will be there. He entered the property without permission of the tenant and proceeded to further invade the tenants privacy by taking pictures.
How is it obvious, clairvoyance? how can you come to that conclusion unless you have serious bias in favour of the OP? many an attic is converted as playroom or storage, it doesnt mean it complies with building regulations as a room nor does it mean it is insured as such.
The OP may have said the agent suggested they use the room as a bedroom but that doesnt correspond with permission, and not from the owner/landlord, the agent is in error to suggest that if thats what was said and the tenants knew well they let the house on the basis of 3 people, by the OPs own admission, the landlord is kicking them out as he suspects they have more people in the house, than on the lease, although the landlord is not required to give any reason.
Its not reasonable to expect the landlord might turn up with a plumber? after the tenant reported that a toilet had overflowed and water came through the ceiling below, are you having a laugh, is this whole thread a wind up??
The tenant invited the landlord to get repairs done, either the landlord is a plumber or is engaging a plumber to do this, in the least he is going to need to inspect the property, the OP and co tenants were caught on the hop, crapped themselves when they realised the state of the place and are now trying to counter their own negligence.
I sincerely hope this guy has his ducks in a row, and deals with things appropriately.
Encouraging the OP to take a militant stance wont do them any favours based on the state they have made the place in a month.
All you need to think is, if you were in this persons shoes, would you accept at face value if a number of issues this serious reared their head in a month and this was your property or relate that to anything you own and someone treated something which you had worked for with such disdain, in such a short time, I doubt it.0 -
The landlord is required to give a reason and it's not a part 4. A part 4 is only in effect after 6 months. It is almost surely a fixed term and not a periodic tenancy (also periodic is different to a part 4).
You're now claiming they broke the toilet too and claim we're favouring the tenant? You're clearly showing bias to the landlord with your leaps in logic.
The agent acting for the landlord said they could use the attic as a bedroom. They did so in good faith. They had a friend stay. We have to take his word that it was just a couple of days. No breach of lease, except from the landlord who didn't give proper notice of inspection or receive permission of such.0 -
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »The landlord is required to give a reason and it's not a part 4. A part 4 is only in effect after 6 months. It is almost surely a fixed term and not a periodic tenancy (also periodic is different to a part 4).
You're now claiming they broke the toilet too and claim we're favouring the tenant? You're clearly showing bias to the landlord with your leaps in logic.
The agent acting for the landlord said they could use the attic as a bedroom. They did so in good faith. They had a friend stay. We have to take his word that it was just a couple of days. No breach of lease, except from the landlord who didn't give proper notice of inspection or receive permission of such.
Subletting is a fairly common stipulation to be called out as not allowed on a standard Fixed term lease. Breach of lease within the first 6 months, tenant doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Landlord does not have to give proper notice of inspection or receive permission when there is viable ongoing property damage or requirement for emergency repairs. Water reaching the downstairs ceiling from an upstairs plumbing issue definitely qualifies in this regard.0 -
Subletting is a fairly common stipulation to be called out as not allowed on a standard Fixed term lease. Breach of lease within the first 6 months, tenant doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Landlord does not have to give proper notice of inspection or receive permission when there is viable ongoing property damage or requirement for emergency repairs. Water reaching the downstairs ceiling from an upstairs plumbing issue definitely qualifies in this regard.
This is assuming they did breach the lease by subletting without permission. As the OP tells it, they had a friend stay for a couple of days. Of course, we're taking him at his word for that, but if the box room had a wardrobe full of clothes and it looked like someone had permanently moved into it, then you can see where the landlord is coming from.
They can either sort it out with the landlord or go to the PRTB, but we have only one side of the story and I'd say the PRTB will have to get involved if the landlord was willing to jump to eviction straight off.0 -
Advertisement
-
To have the op evicted, the property prepared for a new tenant, the estate agents engaged to source a new tenant - that's all going to be a heap of hassle & expense for the LL. Furthermore, he's going to be down on rental income as there's going to be a period where the property won't be let.
It's simply not rational to think that someone would go through all of that pain without cause.0 -
The OP has not said yet where the new bed came from. It hinges on that - did he add bed spaces to the property or did he just move a bed. He claims the agent said he could use the attic instead of the boxroom but he has put a double bed in the attic and he said the box room was tiny.0
-
BeatNikDub wrote: »THIS
This? That the attic was "obviously" converted to a bedroom? We know no such thing (the op said it was 'converted' - that's all he said). Whats the extent of the conversion? Can it take sustained extra weight loading without that resulting in damage?
As regards the other point, I bet the landlord didn't say he was carrying out an inspection - and there's every reason to believe that he wasn't. However, you don't expect him to wear a blindfold!
Good luck pursuing him on that point - as you'll get nowhere and rightly so.0 -
Ok. So the toilet floods into the kitchen but the OP wants the LL to wait until they give explicit permission to enter.
I suspect OP had no problem with the LL coming in until they were caught playing silly beggars with the bedrooms.0 -
Serious question... I don't understand why the house being messy is any of a landlords business. Surely you can live whatever way you like as long as you don't actually damage the house?0
-
Serious question... I don't understand why the house being messy is any of a landlords business. Surely you can live whatever way you like as long as you don't actually damage the house?
It's a very good point. So is it rational then that a LL would go through all of that trouble n' strife for no good reason?0 -
Serious question... I don't understand why the house being messy is any of a landlords business. Surely you can live whatever way you like as long as you don't actually damage the house?
Seriously?
You cant actually, thats like saying you could allow all your rubbish to pile up and clear it up once a year as a tenant.
I have seen this in action by someone near me, not only does it require more work all at once, that kind of thing can and very likely does encourage insects and rodents to take up residence.
The same for if the house strewn in clothes or bags of clothes or just a plain mess, it means they cant clean it, or work clothes, dirty? dusty? oily? it can be unhygenic and it can increase wear and tear and could affect the fabric of the building, ie it might encourage rodents or vermin in where they have a hidden place to sleep, dust to build up and not be accessible to be hoovered, you cant just expect to clean up once, not doing that allows a place to get into a worse state from which it can never be cleaned to the same extent.
Id like to see some photos at this stage myself and see how it is and let people determine then.
Why do you think most people that own a home dont live like animals and clean up once a year??? because its easier, better, more hygienic, more pleasant to live somewhere that is cleaned routinely little by little or as you go along. By no means is my home spotless, but it'd be a hovel if nothing was done bar once or twice a year, there are 3, I presume adults, thats right off the bat a third of the work load.
I am still not sure if you are serious or is that tongue in cheek?
Just because you are not kicking holes in the plaster or the doors down doesnt mean you can live as you please, you are expected to keep a property in good condition or as good as it was when you received it, at the least if someone isnt happy with how clean it is they should mention it, take note and clean as they would have it as they may live there for at least a year, maybe years, its that or not sign the lease and complain later.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »It's a very good point. So is it rational then that a LL would go through all of that trouble n' strife for no good reason?
There is obviously a good reason in the LLs mind - however it could be anything (need the property for family member, get new people in for higher rents, the untidiness itself could be the reason).0 -
Seriously?
You cant actually, thats like saying you could allow all your rubbish to pile up and clear it up once a year as a tenant.
I have seen this in action by someone near me, not only does it require more work all at once, that kind of thing can and very likely does encourage insects and rodents to take up residence.
The same for if the house strewn in clothes or bags of clothes or just a plain mess, it means they cant clean it, or work clothes, dirty? dusty? oily? it can be unhygenic and it can increase wear and tear and could affect the fabric of the building, ie it might encourage rodents or vermin in where they have a hidden place to sleep, dust to build up and not be accessible to be hoovered, you cant just expect to clean up once, not doing that allows a place to get into a worse state from which it can never be cleaned to the same extent.
Id like to see some photos at this stage myself and see how it is and let people determine then.
Why do you think most people that own a home dont live like animals and clean up once a year??? because its easier, better, more hygienic, more pleasant to live somewhere that is cleaned routinely little by little or as you go along. By no means is my home spotless, but it'd be a hovel if nothing was done bar once or twice a year, there are 3, I presume adults, thats right off the bat a third of the work load.
I am still not sure if you are serious or is that tongue in cheek?
Just because you are not kicking holes in the plaster or the doors down doesnt mean you can live as you please, you are expected to keep a property in good condition or as good as it was when you received it, at the least if someone isnt happy with how clean it is they should mention it, take note and clean as they would have it as they may live there for at least a year, maybe years, its that or not sign the lease and complain later.
I understand all that, but I'm not talking about extremes where rubbish is piling up or rodents are taking up residence but the op said 'untidy not dirty' surely there's limits to what a landlord can require. If I have clothes on my bedroom floor, an unmade bed, a glass with water on my locker and dishes on the sideboard overnight that's no-ones business as far as I'm concerned but I would consider the place a little messy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hmm...33 days since introducing the op to the property? I guess there's a possibility - but then the LL doesn't have to go making anything up if that's the reason - it's perfectly legitimate.There is obviously a good reason in the LLs mind - however it could be anything (need the property for family member
33 days after obviously deciding upon the current market rate? I guess it's possible but I'm sure you will agree, it's unlikely.get new people in for higher rents
I guess that's much more likely. However, 'untidiness' is unlikely to motivate a rational landlord to go through the pain of an eviction & reletting process ...not 'untidyness' as most people would understand the term, unless............km991148 wrote:the untidiness itself could be the reason.0
Advertisement