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

Landlords agent let themselves in

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    riemann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,063 ✭✭✭riemann


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I am that plumber or a plumber. I don't ring when on the way. I give you a two or three hour window as to when I will be there. You will either be there or you won't.

    The homeowner or tenant doesn't get to dictate when I might or might not be there. You are either there or not. If you are not there then you don't get the job done.
    I'm not really sure what you might think the EA did wrong. Many companies give you an am/pm appointment. Some don't even narrow it down that much.

    Sounds extremely unprofessional. Common courtesy is to call when leaving previous job to give a more accurate time window.


  • Options
    #33
    Visconti
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭Visconti


    kcdiom wrote: »
    This is the second weekend in a row I have had no hot water in my (professionally managed) apartment. The LL sent someone to look at it and fix it last week, which lasted about 30 hours, and then we have no hot water again. Logged this with my LL, called them this morning, they said they would send someone round. No problem with that until they asked could the plumber let themselves in and I told them my [teenage] daughter was at home sleeping so no, they could not. They were to call me when they were on the way so I could ring her to wake her up.

    This is where the problem lies - the plumber did not call me, he let himself in. My daughter was woken up to the sound of the door locking when he was done. I have spoken to the LL and complained about the plumber letting himself in, I was asked to put it in writing but I wonder does anyone know where we stand with this one? And no, the hot water still is not fixed.

    Did the plumber not ring the bell ? Its unacceptable. Contact should have been made, especially with a male plumber arriving with a teenage girl on her own.


  • Options
    #34
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »
    i dont want anything "to happen", but going forward the LL/EA should first obtain the tenant's permission before he lets himself or anyone else into what is effectively someone else's property.

    It is not and never will be the tenant's property, it may be their home but they don't own it.

    So in the end all he will get is an apology and a promise to not do it again. That is basically what I said. Way overblown outrage.


  • Options
    #35
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    Off Topic Posts Deleted


  • Options
    #36
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭dubrov


    The landlord bias on this forum is there for all to see in this thread (and many others).
    It is a clear breach of tenancy rules.

    It probably wasn't the plumbers fault as the landlord probably told him to go ahead.

    I'd definitely get something in writing and make sure the landlord knows that this will not be tolerated again.
    No one, even the landlord, should be letting themselves in uninvited.

    Give them the benefit of the doubt this time but I wouldn't let a second time go if it reoccurs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,322 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It is not and never will be the tenant's property, it may be their home but they don't own it.

    So in the end all he will get is an apology and a promise to not do it again. That is basically what I said. Way overblown outrage.

    I know that you let properties; in law, the landlord grants possession of the property to the tenant and is bound by a covenant of quiet enjoyment which precludes the landlord, his servants or agents from entering the property without thectenant’s permission other than in exigent circumstances (e.g. a suspected fire). The plumber should have rung the door bell or knocked loudly irrespective of whether he had (invalid) permission.


  • Options
    #38
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    riemann wrote: »
    Sounds extremely unprofessional. Common courtesy is to call when leaving previous job to give a more accurate time window.




    Why would I call when you are supposed to be there?


    What happens if we agree to phone is we get" Right, yeah, ok I'll just nip out to get some milk now. Or OH I have time to walk the dog"


    I'm doing this long before anyone had mobile phones. People waited in back then. Once we started phoning ahead we found people wern't there. We'd ring again from outside the house & get "yeah, I just nipped out back in 2 minutes". 2 minutes can stretch to 20 minutes.


    We give the homeowner a 2 hour or so window. If they are not there when we arrive we don't ring, we go on to our next job. they just lost out. We don't have time to baby sit customers nor is it my job to wake someone's teenager at midday to get them to open the door. We are too busy for any of that carry on.


  • Options
    #39
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I'm doing this long before anyone had mobile phones. People waited in back then. Once we started phoning ahead we found people wern't there. We'd ring again from outside the house & get "yeah, I just nipped out back in 2 minutes". 2 minutes can stretch to 20 minutes.

    Newsflash, this stuff didn't magically start happening the day you started ringing ahead. It happened before and it happens now. You just don't know about it, because you don't ring ahead.

    If you ring ahead, you might save yourself a journey, knowing the homeowner isn't there. I'd have thought that would improve efficiency for someone like yourself, who apparently is too busy to make a phone call, or send a simple text.


  • Options
    #40
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Newsflash, this stuff didn't magically start happening the day you started ringing ahead. It happened before and it happens now. You just don't know about it, because you don't ring ahead.

    If you ring ahead, you might save yourself a journey, knowing the homeowner isn't there. I'd have thought that would improve efficiency for someone like yourself, who apparently is too busy to make a phone call, or send a simple text.




    You misread my post. By giving a two hour window ( 20 years ago it was an AM or PM appointment) we have better success of actually getting someone there in the house. We discovered by ringing ahead people the decided that "Oh I have enough time to nip out for this & that" & we'd get there & they won't be home.


    We have a far better success rate just giving a 2 hour window with no pre call.


  • Options
    #41
    JohnCleary
    Registered Users Posts: 10,210 ✭✭✭✭JohnCleary


    Next weeks thread: "LL promised plumber would call to fix an issue, no sign of them".

    I can tell you right now that if the LL mentions to the plumber you're creating, you won't see him again any time soon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    We give the homeowner a 2 hour or so window. If they are not there when we arrive we don't ring, we go on to our next job. they just lost out. We don't have time to baby sit customers nor is it my job to wake someone's teenager at midday to get them to open the door. We are too busy for any of that carry on.

    Thats not what the OP is talking about though

    Firstly they weren't told whether the plumber was coming or not. No AM/PM, no time slot, just not told if they were coming or not.

    Secondly the plumber just let themselves in, it wasn't that because no one was there the job didn't get done, they let themselves in without even ringing the bell or knocking.

    Its a different situation to what you are talking about.
    Personally I think you would be better ringing ahead but whatever works for you however its not the same situation as the OPs.


  • Options
    #43
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    Thats not what the OP is talking about though

    Firstly they weren't told whether the plumber was coming or not. No AM/PM, no time slot, just not told if they were coming or not.

    Secondly the plumber just let themselves in, it wasn't that because no one was there the job didn't get done, they let themselves in without even ringing the bell or knocking.

    Its a different situation to what you are talking about.
    Personally I think you would be better ringing ahead but whatever works for you however its not the same situation as the OPs.




    Read the OP. They were told that the plumber was coming. Op wanted plumber to phone first. It's not plumbers job to phone a third party.



    As answered before Landlord can't let himself in however OP did give permission to enter. She didn't get a phone call first but she DID give permission for him to enter.


    I've had similar before, trying to ring but not getting through. No coverage, getting message minder. Here's one for you sometimes you can ring a number only to be told that the number can't be reached. The number might work perfectly for everyone else but even texts from your phone aren't delivered.



    The bottom line is OP gave permission according to the opening post.


  • Options
    #44
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Read the OP.

    Read the thread.
    kcdiom wrote: »
    There would have been no need for the plumber to let himself in if they had called me as planned so that I could call her to wake her and let her know to expect him, as the LL hadn't even confirmed that someone would be coming today, never mind if it was to be morning or afternoon.

    ...

    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    As answered before Landlord can't let himself in however OP did give permission to enter. She didn't get a phone call first but she DID give permission for him to enter.

    I've had similar before, trying to ring but not getting through. No coverage, getting message minder. Here's one for you sometimes you can ring a number only to be told that the number can't be reached. The number might work perfectly for everyone else but even texts from your phone aren't delivered.


    The bottom line is OP gave permission according to the opening post.

    Again, no he didn't.
    kcdiom wrote: »
    This is the second weekend in a row I have had no hot water in my (professionally managed) apartment. The LL sent someone to look at it and fix it last week, which lasted about 30 hours, and then we have no hot water again. Logged this with my LL, called them this morning, they said they would send someone round. No problem with that until they asked could the plumber let themselves in and I told them my [teenage] daughter was at home sleeping so no, they could not. They were to call me when they were on the way so I could ring her to wake her up.


  • Options
    #45
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Read the thread.



    ...




    Again, no he didn't.




    There were serious wires crossed. I only have keys with me if I am to let myself in. Why did plumber have keys if he wasn't to let himself in?
    EDIT: Forgot to say I was wrong. I read that he did have permission


  • Options
    #46
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Sleeper12 wrote:
    Read the OP. They were told that the plumber was coming
    Fair enough from the first post it isn't clear but they later said
    kcdiom wrote: »
    , as the LL hadn't even confirmed that someone would be coming today, never mind if it was to be morning or afternoon.
    And
    kcdiom wrote: »
    Overly picky? I think not - there was no indication from the LL that he would be there today.



    Sleeper12 wrote:
    Op wanted plumber to phone first. It's not plumbers job to phone a third party.
    I disagree, the plumber is being employed by the landlord if they get specific instructions to ring before then they should. We don't know did they get those instructions mind.


    Sleeper12 wrote:
    however OP did give permission to enter
    kcdiom wrote: »
    Overly picky?Ordinarily, if there was no one home of course I would give permission to let themselves in - but when expressly asked could they let themselves in, expressly saying no
    From this post they didn't, so I don't think it is clear either way

    Edit to add: I see you just corrected in last post on permission

    Re the keys my reading of it is the landlord owns a lot of the apartments and the plumber might have a master key or something along those lines so wasn't necessarily given those specific keys rather just always has a copy but I might be reading that wrong


  • Options
    #47
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    Fair enough from the first post it isn't clear but they later said

    And






    I disagree, the plumber is being employed by the landlord if they get specific instructions to ring before then they should. We don't know did they get those instructions mind.





    From this post they didn't, so I don't think it is clear either way


    In bold you are totally wrong. It's not a plumbers job to phone anyone. Thats up to landlord.



    Why did plumber have keys? He would only have keys if he was told to let himself in


  • Options
    #48
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    GarIT wrote: »
    Complain to the RTB and contact your solicitor, €10,000 payouts have been made in similar circumstances.

    Whether someone wants to call you picky or not what the plumber did was illegal.

    And forget about having anything ever fixed again without a three month waiting list, a written, witnessed agreement and solitictor present that would make sure everything was correct and above board.


  • Options
    #49
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,477 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    dubrov wrote: »
    The landlord bias on this forum is there for all to see in this thread (and many others).
    It is a clear breach of tenancy rules.

    It probably wasn't the plumbers fault as the landlord probably told him to go ahead.

    I'd definitely get something in writing and make sure the landlord knows that this will not be tolerated again.
    No one, even the landlord, should be letting themselves in uninvited.

    Give them the benefit of the doubt this time but I wouldn't let a second time go if it reoccurs.

    Pure speculation.
    How do you know the LL didn’t specifically say “don’t enter that property unless you get the tenants express permission” and the plumber just ignored the LL, the plumbers phone was on the blink, the plumber didn’t have phone coverage, the plumber rang the bell and no one answered as the daughter was asleep and didn’t hear the bell.
    It’s amazing how quick people are to blame the LL without knowing all the facts.


  • Options
    #50
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    tom1ie wrote:
    Pure speculation. How do you know the LL didn’t specifically say “don’t enter that property unless you get the tenants express permission†and the plumber just ignored the LL, the plumbers phone was on the blink, the plumber didn’t have phone coverage, the plumber rang the bell and no one answered as the daughter was asleep and didn’t hear the bell. It’s amazing how quick people are to blame the LL without knowing all the facts.

    I wouldn't have taken this job. Not in a million years. Its far too messy.

    Plumber had keys. There is only one reason why he'd have keys.

    I assume that the child was ill because simplist solution would have been waking the teenager at 9am so they would have been awake to ler the plumber in

    Plumber ringing landlord who is rings tenant who rings teenager is a ridiculous setup. I wouldn't touch it at all.


  • Options
    #51
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »
    how can you say that? i know dozens of tenants who now own the properties they once rented. so that's utter tosh.
    and even if they do not purchase it, they are still entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of the property, and to receive "adequate notice" if the LL or his agents wishes to access the property. i have tenants, but i would never dream of entering their home without prior consent.

    to listen to the tone of some posters on here, you would be forgiven for thinking we were still back in the 1870s

    You claimed the tenant owned the property while renting. You were wrong and know it but now want to go on about the fact tenants can buy the property. They aren't tenants then but you want to be outraged so fire away.

    The tone of outrage on the thread is so riddiculious. I read it as consent as they agreed for the plumber to call that day. The plumber failed to do as asked but we don't know if he was given the instruction or why he didn't follow them at all. It happened there really is nothing that can be done other than an apology and a promise not to do it again. Done nothing more to it.

    Plumbers are on saying why they do things the way they do them and special terms of how to contact people for entry are often ignored. That is the world and you can't "should" the world around. I think it is all childish and unreasonable. Personally I hire a plumber and give them the tenants number to arrange the best time . Still get tenants fuming that they didnt turn up abd blaming me. What can I do about tradesmen not turning up when they said they would? Best is hire another one who very may well do the same. Tenants have insisted on being there and lost days of work and tradesmen didn't turn up. Asked me to compensate them for lost wages. Never did nor will, it is the nature of the beast.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,623 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    How did the misunderstanding occur? Is it the case that the landlord gave the keys to the plumber and told him that it would be grand, landlord would talk to tenant and get permission for them to enter, so just go ahead. So the plumber thought permission to enter had been given? That's an issue between you and the landlord, more than an issue with the plumber.

    Or, maybe the landlord told the plumber to wait, but the plumber decided to go ahead and enter to fix the problem anyway? It's still an issue between you and your landlord, but also an issue with the plumber too (and between landlord and plumber).

    Either way, it's an issue between you and your landlord, and it's an issue I'd take pretty seriously. There's nothing picky or no overreaction about somebody entering your home when you expressly said they did not have permission to do so.


  • Options
    #53
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    In bold you are totally wrong. It's not a plumbers job to phone anyone. Thats up to landlord.

    Why did plumber have keys? He would only have keys if he was told to let himself in
    kcdiom wrote:
    plumber is on staff so I would imagine being told no you cant just let yourself in is more unusual than just using master keys

    If plumber is on staff employed by landlord there job is whatever they are asked, if that includes ringing the client so be it. That would also explain why they had the keys.


  • Options
    #54
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I am that plumber or a plumber. I don't ring when on the way. I give you a two or three hour window as to when I will be there. You will either be there or you won't.

    The homeowner or tenant doesn't get to dictate when I might or might not be there. You are either there or not. If you are not there then you don't get the job done.
    I'm not really sure what you might think the EA did wrong. Many companies give you an am/pm appointment. Some don't even narrow it down that much.

    Are you out of your mind? You don't see what is wrong with someone entering a persons home without warning or permission? You'd be perfectly happy if your teenage daughter was sleeping in your home and a random man just let himself in to your house?

    People have no respect for tenants and no clue as to what they are talking about. Neither the LL, the agent or the plumber has the right, legally, to enter without the express consent and knowledge of the tenant. That's the fact and this situtation should never have happened.


  • Options
    #55
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    stinkbomb wrote:
    Are you out of your mind? You don't see what is wrong with someone entering a persons home without warning or permission? You'd be perfectly happy if your teenage daughter was sleeping in your home and a random man just let himself in to your house?

    I wouldn't have taken the job. Its a ridiculous set up for gaining access


  • Options
    #56
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 3,991 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    kcdiom wrote: »
    I did ask for their contact details, to be assured they would contact me. LL is not really piggy in the middle, they have a bank of maintenance staff that they allocate the jobs to.

    If you go making a fuss about this the next time something breaks they will tell you a plumber will be out on Thursday and can you be there to let them in. So you'll end up having to wait in all day for them. -- Could you not have just called your daughter and told her to get up, or if she was sick and needed to sleep put it off till you could be there?


  • Options
    #57
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I wouldn't have taken the job. Its a ridiculous set up for gaining access

    Phoning a tenant before entering their home is not a ridiculous set up for gaining access. Its perfectly normal. Its what you would do if the job was for a homeowner rather than a tenant, so do you not do any jobs for homeowners?


  • Options
    #58
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Phoning a tenant before entering their home is not a ridiculous set up for gaining access. Its perfectly normal. Its what you would do if the job was for a homeowner rather than a tenant, so do you not do any jobs for homeowners?

    He is telling you he wouldn't bother as a plumber. I am telling you as a landlord dealing with tradesmen this is how they behave. You don't want accept that and want to say how they should act. They don't have to and can still get work so you can't get a plumber down.

    Where do you suggest somebody finds a plumber to behave as you think they should?


  • Options
    #59
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    stinkbomb wrote:
    Phoning a tenant before entering their home is not a ridiculous set up for gaining access. Its perfectly normal. Its what you would do if the job was for a homeowner rather than a tenant, so do you not do any jobs for homeowners?

    You don't get it. It's not the plumbers job to ring the tenants. Plumbers contract is with the landlord and not a third party.

    When booking in jobs you will deal with either the tenant or landlord, not both.

    Did you miss the part where the landlord (the person paying him) handed him keys. What do you suppose he was supposed to be doing with the keys?

    It looks like the plumber was given keys and told to let himself in. What other reason would he have keys but to let himself in?


  • Options
    #60
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Where do you suggest somebody finds a plumber to behave as you think they should?

    I've never had a tradesman who was unable to do at least 1 of the following.

    a. Call when they're on their way
    b. Use a doorbell

    I would have thought this was normal. Never would I give a total stranger a key to my home, in fact I would have thought that was abnormal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Wabbit Ears
    Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭Wabbit Ears


    so to recap:

    OP wants boiler fixed, requests plumber
    LL agreess to send plumber
    **Permission granted**
    OP states that landlord that someone must must ring ahead of plumbers arrival as Daughter will be asleep
    **condition of entry added, acknowledgement that condition accepted by LL not clear. Permission still granted but with a unconfirmed condition**
    Plumber doesnt ring ahead but enters the property to do job Op requested to be done
    **Plumber has permission to enter, LL is in breach of condition if condition was agreed**

    So.. In my mind Plumber did job he was asked to do, Landlord failed to enforce a requested condition which may or may not been expressly stated to be a dealbreaker to entry to the property.

    Not ideal, but IMHO, If OP wants the boiler issue resolved should accept that, while not ideal, Chasing it wont have any benificial outcome.


Advertisement