Landlords agent let themselves in

Sleeper12

cruizer101 wrote: »

Just to note the OP's daughter was in bed as they were working the previous night, so not a case of lazy teenager. They were not being asked to get the teenager out of bed they were being asked to be a bit courteous and make a quick call before arriving.

Whether or not you would take the job given those conditions is irrelevant, in this case those conditions were agreed to but not stuck to.

Are you really saying you would rather have wasted your time travelling rather than make a quick phone call. What if I am taking a **** when you call so can't get to the door straight away, or happen to be putting the bin out the back. Just because you have given a 2 hour time-slot doesn't mean I'm going to wait by the door for the two hours.

Too messy for me. I wouldn't have taken the job. If the landlord was a regular I'd have given a two hour window on the next Saturday so OP would be there

Ray Palmer

Armando Handsome Rudder wrote: »

Your lack of empathy and understanding is quite disconcerting.

The law is the law, abide by it or suffer the consequences

Lack of empathy? That is the most riddiculious thing to say. What am I meant to have empathy for? A person got upset because somebody didn't do as they stated and they are angry about it not being followed. Some people need to grow up

I note a lot of people here being outraged by this also defended a tenant for making changes without permission. According to you the law is the law so they should have been kicked out. Interesting how when something favours a tenant the rules and laws don't matter but the other way round the landlord is unreasonable.

Please OP go file a case I would love to hear what happens. People here are clueless of reality.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Lack of empathy? That is the most riddiculious thing to say. What am I meant to have empathy for? A person got upset because somebody didn't do as they stated and they are angry about it not being followed. Some people need to grow up

Please OP go file a case I would love to hear what happens. People here are clueless of reality.

Being upset at a stranger entering your home when you explicitly said not to, is not an overreaction. Thanks for proving my point.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I note a lot of people here being outraged by this also defended a tenant for making changes without permission. According to you the law is the law so they should have been kicked out. Interesting how when something favours a tenant the rules and laws don't matter but the other way round the landlord is unreasonable.

What has this thread got to do with the other? What's your point? It's also a straw man.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Please OP go file a case I would love to hear what happens. People here are clueless of reality.

I guess the irony here is completely lost on you.

Thoie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Too messy for me. I wouldn't have taken the job. If the landlord was a regular I'd have given a two hour window on the next Saturday so OP would be there

You yourself have said you'd have given the OP a 2 hour window when you'd be there, e.g. "Thursday, between 8 and 10". The OP (and by extension the daughter), wasn't even told what day the plumber would be coming, which is what caused the issue. If someone (whether that be the agent or the plumber) had told the OP "the plumber will be around Tuesday morning", OP would have managed the sleeping daughter situation. The issue here, which you seem to be ignoring, is that there was zero notice at all. You hardly tell your clients "I'll turn up sometime in October, and if you're not there, tough chucks"?

stinkbomb

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Lack of empathy? That is the most riddiculious thing to say. What am I meant to have empathy for? A person got upset because somebody didn't do as they stated and they are angry about it not being followed. Some people need to grow up

I note a lot of people here being outraged by this also defended a tenant for making changes without permission. According to you the law is the law so they should have been kicked out. Interesting how when something favours a tenant the rules and laws don't matter but the other way round the landlord is unreasonable.

Please OP go file a case I would love to hear what happens. People here are clueless of reality.

You're trolling. It's illegal to enter someones home without their persmission. It is not illegal to paint the walls in a rented house.
The only clueless one here is you.

Pelvis

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'll be honest here, I don't understand why teenage daughter wasn't awake & waiting to let the plumber in. If it was 7 or 8am I'd understand.

For a tradesman who doesn't have the time to make a call, you certainly do have plenty of time to post on here, though without actually reading the thread it seems.

kcdiom wrote: »

My daughter was working last night, which is the whole reason she was sleeping today

Graces7

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Why
This isn't some random person who walks in off the street.
This person is known to the Tennant and landlord and Was there last week

You seem to think that a tradesman can't be left near a teenager

But to her it was.

Sleeper12

Armando Handsome Rudder wrote:

Being upset at a stranger entering your home when you explicitly said not to, is not an overreaction. Thanks for proving my point.

This "stranger" was already in the home the week before. OP's daughter was there, though she should have been awake. Someone said that she was working so not a young teenager. Minimum working age I think is 16 and possibly older (18) if working nights.

Thread title is correct. Plumber didn't break any laws. It's perfectly reasonable for a plumber to assume that once the landlord has given keys that he can enter. Landlord seems to have fecked it up by trying to rectify the problem as quickly as possible. Dammed if you do & dammed if you don't is the landlords life unfortunately.
It's still a storm in a teacup imo.

stinkbomb

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Plumber didn't break any laws. It's perfectly reasonable for a plumber to assume that once the landlord has given keys that he can enter. Landlord seems to have fecked it up by trying to rectify the problem as quickly as possible. Dammed if you do & dammed if you don't is the landlords life unfortunately.
It's still a storm in a teacup imo.

He did break the law, and its not reasonable to think that because you had permission to enter last week you also have it this week. If I loan you my car one day it doesn't mean you can drive it away a day the week after, does it?

It's not a poor landlord thing. Its not difficult to tell plumber "X needs whatever fixing, call her and arrange when". It's what everyone else on the planet does, after all.

Sleeper12

Thoie wrote:

You yourself have said you'd have given the OP a 2 hour window when you'd be there, e.g. "Thursday, between 8 and 10". The OP (and by extension the daughter), wasn't even told what day the plumber would be coming, which is what caused the issue. If someone (whether that be the agent or the plumber) had told the OP "the plumber will be around Tuesday morning", OP would have managed the sleeping daughter situation. The issue here, which you seem to be ignoring, is that there was zero notice at all. You hardly tell your clients "I'll turn up sometime in October, and if you're not there, tough chucks"?

Have you read the opening post in the thread? Op says they knew that the plumber was coming. Maybe op changed that in later posts that I missed & I apologise to you if I have missed it.

Pelvis

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Have you read the opening post in the thread? Op says they knew that the plumber was coming. Maybe op changed that in later posts that I missed & I apologise to you if I have missed it.

Yes you did miss it, and it's been pointed out to you since. So why are you still arguing about it?

Thoie

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: »

Have you read the opening post in the thread? Op says they knew that the plumber was coming. Maybe op changed that in later posts that I missed & I apologise to you if I have missed it.

Post #4 - the OP didn't know what day the plumber would be coming, just that the landlord was arranging a plumber.

Sleeper12

Pelvis wrote:

For a tradesman who doesn't have the time to make a call, you certainly do have plenty of time to post on here, though without actually reading the thread it seems.

I have plenty of time to post. I rarely spend more than 20 or 30 minutes on each job. My day is spent travelling. I often think my job description should be driver rather than plumber

stinkbomb wrote:

He did break the law, and its not reasonable to think that because you had permission to enter last week you also have it this week. If I loan you my car one day it doesn't mean you can drive it away a day the week after, does it?

Nope. You are making that up. Plumber doesn't need permission from the tenant. Landlord needs permission from the tenant for the plumber to enter. On the rare jobs where I let myself in I would never have contact with the tenant. I have this cleared with my solicitor long ago. If someone gives me keys how am I to know that they don't have permission to enter. How am I to know that they aren't the tenants. How am I going to know if its a rental or private home. I am a landlord and a tradesman. Tradesmen don't need permission from the tenant. Landlord needs to get permission from the tenant for the tradesman. Tradesmen entering the property without the tenant permission is the responsibility of the landlord. Op knows this. Read the thread title. No mention of tradesman there. Landlord is totally responsible. Tradesmen have no contract with the tenant.

I have said earlier I will deal with the landlord or the tenant. I never ever deal with both. You can only have a contract with one & not both.

GreeBo

From www.threshold.ie

When you rent a property from a private landlord, while they own the property, it is your home. During your tenancy the landlord or their authorised agent has an obligation to ensure you have peaceful occupation of the property.

Unless there is an agreement to the contrary or it is an emergency, a landlord should not call to the property unannounced or enter the property without your permission.

Landlords and/or their authorised agents may request access at reasonable intervals to carry out repairs or inspections of the property. This must be done at a date/time agreed with you in advance. If a suggested time is not convenient an alternative should be arranged as soon as possible.

There is no legal minimum period of notice that has to be given e.g. 24 hours. It is a matter of what is agreed between both you and your landlord/agent.

In arranging for repairs to be carried out, your landlord/agent may need to get a third party specialist such as a plumber, electrician etc to visit the property and this may not always be possible to arrange within your normal schedule. Many tenants wish to be in the property to allow access but this may involve having to organise time off work, college or other commitments. Alternatively you may agree for your landlord/agent to organise access in your absence.

Ray Palmer

Armando Handsome Rudder wrote: »

Being upset at a stranger entering your home when you explicitly said not to, is not an overreaction. Thanks for proving my point.

The person was going to go into the property anyway. You don't get to bark orders at people and assume they will agree. You said I had no empathy. He is angry because of a miscommunication. How you know it was clear is a mystery. He was still going to have a stranger in the place with his teenage daughter. If it was such a concern he should have said no. He didn't the outrage is about not following orders.

Armando Handsome Rudder wrote: »

What has this thread got to do with the other? What's your point? It's also a straw man.

It is relevant when an individual like yourself is all about the law in one thread yet takes a completely different view in another. It indicates a hypocrite and a bias. Not a straw man because they are both people relating their experiences.

Armando Handsome Rudder wrote: »

I guess the irony here is completely lost on you.

You need a dictionary because you don't understand several words like empathy, irony or strawman.

Ray Palmer

stinkbomb wrote: »

You're trolling. It's illegal to enter someones home without their persmission. It is not illegal to paint the walls in a rented house.
The only clueless one here is you.

Lots of other people know I am a long term poster with lots of experience. I never said it was illegal to paint a place.
Any sensible person can see a mistake was made. That is all.

stinkbomb

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Lots of other people know I am a long term poster with lots of experience. I never said it was illegal to paint a place.
Any sensible person can see a mistake was made. That is all.

But you said its not a mistake and its perfectly acceptable and normal behavior. Glad you have realised how wrong you were, even if you don't actually spell it out....

Sleeper12

stinkbomb wrote:

But you said its not a mistake and its perfectly acceptable and normal behavior. Glad you have realised how wrong you were, even if you don't actually spell it out....

I think everyone realises that a mistake has been made. I just don't think it's the end of the world mistake though. I also weigh up the fact that the landlord acted so quickly. Reported & repaired in the same day.

If I were op I'd ask myself was it a genuine mistake or did the landlord really not give a toss about me. Only op can answer that question as none of us know the property or the landlord.

Ray Palmer

stinkbomb wrote: »

But you said its not a mistake and its perfectly acceptable and normal behavior. Glad you have realised how wrong you were, even if you don't actually spell it out....

I said repeatedly that it was likely a misunderstanding. Your overreaction blinded you to reading what was said. It is perfectly acceptable and normal behaviour to leave keys with a plumber and tell the tenant the tradesman will call at some point that day. So no need to put words in my mouth after you understood what I have been saying.

It is all a complete overreaction from one person perception with people breaking down sentences.

Only result can happen, an apology and a promise to be clear on entry. What else would any sane person want?

stinkbomb

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is perfectly acceptable and normal behaviour to leave keys with a plumber and tell the tenant the tradesman will call at some point that day. So no need to put words in my mouth after you understood what I have been saying.

IT IS NOT normal or acceptable for a landlord to give keys to a tradesperson and tell them to let themselves in. IT IS NOT normal or acceptable for said tradesperson to let themselves into a property without the express permission of the TENANT.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this very simple fact for you if you have not yet understood.

Sleeper12

Tradesmen don't need permission from the tenant.

Landlord needs to get permission from the tenant on behalf of the tradesman. Tradesman is acting on landlords behalf at all times.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This "stranger" was already in the home the week before. OP's daughter was there, though she should have been awake. Someone said that she was working so not a young teenager. Minimum working age I think is 16 and possibly older (18) if working nights.

Being in the home once before doesn't jack, the plumber is still a stranger to the OP.

Who are you to say when somebody should be asleep or awake?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's still a storm in a teacup imo.

You are just playing it down. What do you not get about people not wanting other people in their home? They don't want them entering their home without an agreement, how is that so difficult to understand?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The person was going to go into the property anyway. You don't get to bark orders at people and assume they will agree. You said I had no empathy. He is angry because of a miscommunication. How you know it was clear is a mystery. He was still going to have a stranger in the place with his teenage daughter. If it was such a concern he should have said no. He didn't the outrage is about not following orders.

Paraphrase all you wish, you are only fooling yourself. They don't have to agree, that's for sure, but they have to suffer the consequences of entering a home without authorization. Just because you have a blaze attitude towards it, doesn't mean everybody else does. As a landlord you should be aware of the law, if you are not, then maybe you should have somebody managing your property for you.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is relevant when an individual like yourself is all about the law in one thread yet takes a completely different view in another. It indicates a hypocrite and a bias. Not a straw man because they are both people relating their experiences.

I have a completely different view on another thread? I'd love to know what my opinion is on that thread, please do tell.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You need a dictionary because you don't understand several words like empathy, irony or strawman.

I won't come down there to fight on that base level

DubJJ

DubJJ wrote: »

I think the biggest shock from this thread is that some people don't seem to think it's an issue that a strange man let himself into a property without permission whilst a teenage girl was alone in bed.
Whether it was the plumbers fault or the landlords this is completely unacceptable and I have to doubt the decency of any man who thinks otherwise.

This is somebody's daughter, forget about the whole LL v Tennant argument (I have been both sides in my time), this is not acceptable and I am absolutely disgusted with anybody who says otherwise.

There is a lot of nonsense in this thread but this and other posts that are so “outraged” that a big bad plumber was in the same house as a teenage girl really take the absolute biscuit. Who cares ffs, people are gone so precious nowadays it’s a wonder they can even leave the house.

stinkbomb wrote: »

IT IS NOT normal or acceptable for a landlord to give keys to a tradesperson and tell them to let themselves in. IT IS NOT normal or acceptable for said tradesperson to let themselves into a property without the express permission of the TENANT.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this very simple fact for you if you have not yet understood.

But is it is all very normal from my experience also, like a few other posters (and most people in the real world) I am not totally paranoid about tradesmen entering my home and have far far better things for doing than putting myself out and hanging around for one to call.

In all the places I have rented the LL was given permission to allow tradesmen to enter when ever they need to to solve issues. I was never asked for permission by a tradesmen as they deal with the LL not the tenant. In order for them to enter it varied in different houses or different times a tradesman was calling: I would either leave out a key (multiple days in a row often before they would actually call), the LL would give them a key or the LL would arrive with them to let them in (rare but I happened to be home once when they called, only reason I know this is how they got in).

I know lots of people renting and the above is very normal, tradesmen letting themseves in is very normal and only talking with the LL to arrange it is also very normal.

Same goes for owner occupied houses, people have always let themselves in with a hidden key in my home place over the years with no own there and in my current house if no one is home or can be a key will be left out or given to the tradesperson as it’s simply not an issue for most people to allow tradesmen enter when you are out.

How the hell would some here deal with a big job in their home or if they were building an extension etc. Take a few weeks off work to hang around the house watching the people doing their job?

osarusan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Tradesmen have no contract with the tenant.

You don't know if this is the case in this particular situation though.


You've said that it's something you wouldn't agree to do, but that doesn't mean it isn't something that this particular plumber wouldn't agree to do.


Without knowing what, if anything, was agreed between landlord and plumber regarding calling the tenant in advance, there is no way to know whose responsibility it was to make that call.

Sleeper12

osarusan wrote:

You don't know if this is the case in this particular situation though.

Here is what I know. Tradesman never gets permission from the tenant. Landlord must get permission from the tenant for the tradesman. It's landlords responsibility. Tradesman is there on behalf of the landlord. Landlord is responsible for anything his tradesmen do or don't do as far as the tenant is concerned. If the tradesman let himself in without permission tenants don't chase the tradesman. They chase the landlord because he is responsible for the tradesman.

Even if the landlord said to the tradesman get permission first it's still the landlords fault because it's his responsibility to get the permission himself. Landlord needs to satisfy himself that he has permission. Landlord can't pass his duty of care onto the tradesman.

It's really not that complicated. Many posters are over thinking the whole thing.

In this case I know that tradesman had keys. Only one reason that he had keys & that was to let himself in.

uck51js9zml2yt

What was the plumber to do?

Wait around while the father called the daughter and she eventually woke up to answer the call. Get up and let him in?

Pure nonsense.

EdgeCase

Genevieve Kind Tedium wrote: »

What was the plumber to do?

Wait around while the father called the daughter and she eventually woke up to answer the call. Get up and let him in?

Pure nonsense.

Ring the door bell like he would if calling to anyone else’s house perhaps?!

I rented in Dublin some time ago and we had a situation where a tradesman let himself in similarly. Caused absolute chaos. My housemate was at home on her own and had been in the shower and had no idea he was calling. There was no attempt whatsoever to make an arrangement. The attitude we got was “ah sure it’s only tenants”

She walked out of the shower to find a strange man in the apartment and screamed blue murder thinking he was an intruder. She locked herself in the bathroom and called 999

How would you feel if anyone let themselves into your home unannounced? It’s an absolutely massive intrusion and is totally unacceptable.

We all have mobile phone and it’s incredibly easy to ring someone.

Graces7

EdgeCase wrote: »

Ring the door bell like he would if calling to anyone else’s house perhaps?!

I rented in Dublin some time ago and we had a situation where a tradesman let himself in similarly. Caused absolute chaos. My housemate was at home on her own and had been in the shower and had no idea he was calling. There was no attempt whatsoever to make an arrangement. The attitude we got was “ah sure it’s only tenants”

She walked out of the shower to find a strange man in the apartment and screamed blue murder thinking he was an intruder. She locked herself in the bathroom and called 999

How would you feel if anyone let themselves into your home unannounced? It’s an absolutely massive intrusion and is totally unacceptable.

We all have mobile phone and it’s incredibly easy to ring someone.

If anyone entered here like that the Gardai would be called immediately also.
Someone tried it here on a similar pretext and that was done.

It is illegal and totally unacceptable and deeply distressing.

My door now has extra security .

How can anyone pretend bad things do not happen?

Sleeper12

EdgeCase wrote: »

Ring the door bell like he would if calling to anyone else’s house perhaps?!

Any suggestion that the plumber didn't knock on the door came from posters imaginations. No one knows as no one was there.


Usually when letting yourself in, you would knock, just in case someone was in. Then as you open the door you'd give a shout "hello". Why anyone would try suggest the plumber didn't do this is beyond me. It's pure guesswork & not based on fact. Why not claim that he cooked himself a fry while he was there too?

TheChizler

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Usually when letting yourself in, you would knock, just in case someone was in. Then as you open the door you'd give a shout "hello". Why anyone would try suggest the plumber didn't do this is beyond me. It's pure guesswork & not based on fact. Why not claim that he cooked himself a fry while he was there too?

Surely that's just guesswork from yourself too, why say usually when earlier you said you'd never enter someone's house without them present?