Landlords agent let themselves in

Ray Palmer

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i am a grown man and nobody enters my house without my permission and my being there. i dont give a rat's how busy their frickin schedule.
and they'll go in and out the back gate if i say so.

my house! my rules!

Not your house if you are a tenant and not your rules either. It maybe your home but the landlord can set rules on you. You cannot give unreasonable interferance on letting a tradesman or landlord into the property.

For example you can't insist the tradesman only does the work after 6pm or they can only come in the back gate. You have obligations as a tenant and how you feel about it doesn't change the law.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not your house if you are a tenant and not your rules either. It maybe your home but the landlord can set rules on you. You cannot give unreasonable interferance on letting a tradesman or landlord into the property.

For example you can't insist the tradesman only does the work after 6pm or they can only come in the back gate. You have obligations as a tenant and how you feel about it doesn't change the law.

where i come from it's called common-sense and mutual respect. you should try it sometime.

JustMe,K

Em...well this exploded while I was offline and went off on a tangent. To clarify a few points about my particular case:

1 - I was told a plumber would come, not what time, or what day. It was the LL who suggested they would call me to gain access IF the plumber arrived on Monday due to me stating that my daughter was alone in the apartment and asleep.
2 - There is a buzzer entry system to the building, there is no bell or knocker on our individual doors, so presumably the maintenance staff have access fobs as well as master keys. Arguably, if he had used the buzzer that would have woken her anyway because that thing would wake the dead. On the other hand, unless you are standing in the hallway when someone knocks with their fist you would be unlikely to hear them.
3 - Ordinarily, I would have no issue with a tradesman who is on my LL's staff entering the premises to fix an issue when I am not there. I'm not an idiot or entitled or a diva of any description, I understand people are busy and I have to trust that the people my LL chooses to work for them are reputable and trustworthy. The issue is they asked could they let themselves in, were told that in this case, if they were coming that day no and also told why. Again, it was suggested by the LL that they would call me, not by me. And again, I had no idea when they might be coming.
4 - The person who fixed the water the previous week was not the same person who attended on Monday (not really relevant, but someone mentioned it). Regardless, my daughter was in school last time they came and I was home (Monday was an inservice day of some description which is why she was off school and allowed work the night before before anyone decides to jump on that).
5 - When I eventually got hold of someone in my LL's office that was able to deal with my complaint, she apologised for the whole incident, acknowledged it definitely should not have happened and explained how it came about.
6 - I rent from a so called 'vulture fund'. Hence the bank of maintenance staff and master keys. I don't generally have issues with my LL or their staff, I pay my rent and they take it, my building is well maintained and its generally not a bad place to live - this is the first time I have encountered a problem with how things have worked.
7 - The hot water still isn't fixed!! Apparently it was being fixed yesterday, I was home and told my LL that if they knocked and I didn't answer they could use the key as I would not be in the entire day (no time slot was given). I happened to be home when he arrived and put a temporary fix in place. They are allegedly coming back today - I am in work, my daughter is in school, therefore there is no issue with the plumber letting himself in, if he materialises. I guess we will find out this evening and hopefully the whole saga will be over!

Sleeper12

kcdiom wrote: »

5 - When I eventually got hold of someone in my LL's office that was able to deal with my complaint, she apologised for the whole incident, acknowledged it definitely should not have happened and explained how it came about.

If I were the tenant no.5 above would be the important one for me. I could live with a genuine mistake or miscommunication If it were a landlord who did it deliberately & really couldn't give a dam that would be a different matter

Ray Palmer

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

where i come from it's called common-sense and mutual respect. you should try it sometime.

LOL.
You talk of common sense and respect after saying you own property you rent and dictating rules of how a tradesman can enter the property. That is just you completely contradicting your self. If you can't see that you are deluded

JustMe,K

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If I were the tenant no.5 above would be the important one for me. I could live with a genuine mistake or miscommunication If it were a landlord who did it deliberately & really couldn't give a dam that would be a different matter

It does seem to have been a genuine miscommunication between the office staff and the maintenance staff. As I have said, I don't generally have issues with the LL.

Sleeper12

kcdiom wrote: »

It does seem to have been a genuine miscommunication between the office staff and the maintenance staff. As I have said, I don't generally have issues with the LL.

I'm impressed they acted the very day you reported the problem. It is a shame about the mixup. They would have deserved 10 out of 10 if they didn't let themselves in

GreeBo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ffs! Another poster that can't read posts.

Lets do this in bold With full permission from the tenant to enter landlords & tradesmen always knock first. then use the key making as much noise as possible & then shout hello several times.





You do realize that comment makes no sense at all. Tenant is expecting you to let yourself in. I am not expecting tenant to be home because they told me they wont be there.



Please, please explain how I shouldn't enter after I knock. What would be my point in going there if I don't follow through & let myself in as arranged?


You aren't making any sense at all

Perhaps you have wandered into the wrong thread, as in *this* thread there was no permission given (it was expressly NOT given) and no one in the home expected the plumber to let himself in.

But sure please tell us yet again how you wouldnt take such a job as time is money yadda yadda yadda:rolleyes:

GreeBo

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Forget it, too many people are of the mindset "I am offended, so therefore I am automatically right".
Best is, let them jump and shout. 99.99% can't be arsed doing anything about it and the 0.01% o to a solicitor who tells them "not worth my while".
On the internet they all big men that will drag you to court because their bestest golf buddy is the biggest barrister in the land, on the other hand that is about as likely as Trump locking up Hillary Clinton. Just noise.

Its nothing to do with "offence" its do with the myriad of issues with a strange letting themselves into your home.

but you jump away on your anti-PC argument even though it has zero relevance here.

Ray Palmer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If I were the tenant no.5 above would be the important one for me. I could live with a genuine mistake or miscommunication If it were a landlord who did it deliberately & really couldn't give a dam that would be a different matter

That was what was being said yet you wouldn't accept it just a few posts ago. Note the tenant was happy to have the tradesman come in but you said that was not normal nor acceptable. You owe some apologies

JustMe,K

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm impressed they acted the very day you reported the problem. It is a shame about the mixup. They would have deserved 10 out of 10 if they didn't let themselves in

I reported it Saturday, but obviously didn't expect that there would be someone hanging around over the weekend waiting for problems to arise to be fixed :cool: which may have fed into someone coming round the day the office was back open. There's an out of hours emergency number, but I wouldn't really class no hot water as an emergency!

Sleeper12

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps you have wandered into the wrong thread, as in *this* thread there was no permission given (it was expressly NOT given) and no one in the home expected the plumber to let himself in.

But sure please tell us yet again how you wouldnt take such a job as time is money yadda yadda yadda:rolleyes:

Go away with yourself. You didn't read my post properly. A bigger man would say sorry I made a mistake but hey what can I do

dr.fuzzenstein

kcdiom wrote: »

Em...well this exploded while I was offline and went off on a tangent. To clarify a few points about my particular case:

1 - I was told a plumber would come, not what time, or what day. It was the LL who suggested they would call me to gain access IF the plumber arrived on Monday due to me stating that my daughter was alone in the apartment and asleep.
2 - There is a buzzer entry system to the building, there is no bell or knocker on our individual doors, so presumably the maintenance staff have access fobs as well as master keys. Arguably, if he had used the buzzer that would have woken her anyway because that thing would wake the dead. On the other hand, unless you are standing in the hallway when someone knocks with their fist you would be unlikely to hear them.
3 - Ordinarily, I would have no issue with a tradesman who is on my LL's staff entering the premises to fix an issue when I am not there. I'm not an idiot or entitled or a diva of any description, I understand people are busy and I have to trust that the people my LL chooses to work for them are reputable and trustworthy. The issue is they asked could they let themselves in, were told that in this case, if they were coming that day no and also told why. Again, it was suggested by the LL that they would call me, not by me. And again, I had no idea when they might be coming.
4 - The person who fixed the water the previous week was not the same person who attended on Monday (not really relevant, but someone mentioned it). Regardless, my daughter was in school last time they came and I was home (Monday was an inservice day of some description which is why she was off school and allowed work the night before before anyone decides to jump on that).
5 - When I eventually got hold of someone in my LL's office that was able to deal with my complaint, she apologised for the whole incident, acknowledged it definitely should not have happened and explained how it came about.
6 - I rent from a so called 'vulture fund'. Hence the bank of maintenance staff and master keys. I don't generally have issues with my LL or their staff, I pay my rent and they take it, my building is well maintained and its generally not a bad place to live - this is the first time I have encountered a problem with how things have worked.
7 - The hot water still isn't fixed!! Apparently it was being fixed yesterday, I was home and told my LL that if they knocked and I didn't answer they could use the key as I would not be in the entire day (no time slot was given). I happened to be home when he arrived and put a temporary fix in place. They are allegedly coming back today - I am in work, my daughter is in school, therefore there is no issue with the plumber letting himself in, if he materialises. I guess we will find out this evening and hopefully the whole saga will be over!

Point 7 is rather a bummer, hope it works out for you.
At least you're dealing with this in an adult fashion, some people would have had a stroke, called the cops on the plumber and instructed their solicitor to sue the management company for a squillion gazillion quid going by this thead.

JustMe,K

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Point 7 is rather a bummer, hope it works out for you.
At least you're dealing with this in an adult fashion, some people would have had a stroke, called the cops on the plumber and instructed their solicitor to sue the management company for a squillion gazillion quid going by this thead.

Thanks, while a squillion gazillion quid would be nice, I will be happy with hot water so I don't have to listen to whinging about either having to go somewhere else for hot showers, or having to wash hair in cold water!!

stinkbomb

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not your house if you are a tenant and not your rules either. It maybe your home but the landlord can set rules on you. You cannot give unreasonable interferance on letting a tradesman or landlord into the property.

For example you can't insist the tradesman only does the work after 6pm or they can only come in the back gate. You have obligations as a tenant and how you feel about it doesn't change the law.

Wrong again! the landlord can not "set rules on you" to make you let other people into the property. At all. The tenant could choose to not let the plumber in ever, and have no hot water. The landlord could do nothing about that other than start the long eviction process, gain possession, and then let the plumber in.

Can't see any tenant doing that, but legally they are entitled to do so. You absolutely CAN insist that the tradesman can only do the work when you are there. FACT.

Still not getting it are you? only the tenant can give permission for anyone to enter the property. Not the landlord. Can't spell it out any more simply for you.

Sleeper12

stinkbomb wrote:

Can't see any tenant doing that, but legally they are entitled to do so. You absolutely CAN insist that the tradesman can only do the work when you are there. FACT.

In the case of an emergency landlord and tradesman can enter with or without you being home and with or without your permission.

Even regular repair the landlord can bring in a tradesman without your permission if you can't /won't make yourself available to reasonable requests to meet the tradesman at a time that suits him. For example if you work Monday to Friday 9 to 5 and the tradesman only works Monday to Friday 9 to 5 you have a choice to take a few hours off work, get someone else to sit there for the 2 hours window or the landlord can send in the tradesman with the keys with or without your permission.

Most tenants make arrangements in work to suit the tradesman but you can't refuse access indefinitely. Landlord has a right to be maintain his property.

Graham

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Even regular repair the landlord can bring in a tradesman without your permission if you can't /won't make yourself available to reasonable requests to meet the tradesman at a time that suits him. For example if you work Monday to Friday 9 to 5 and the tradesman only works Monday to Friday 9 to 5 you have a choice to take a few hours off work, get someone else to sit there for the 2 hours window or the landlord can send in the tradesman with the keys with or without your permission.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to that particular allowance in the residential tenancies act.

Sleeper12

Graham wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing a link to that particular allowance in the residential tenancies act.

"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."

You've read the above 10 million times. You know a tenant cannot refuse reasonable requests for access for repairs or inspections.

stinkbomb

stinkbomb wrote: »

Wrong again! the landlord can not "set rules on you" to make you let other people into the property. At all. The tenant could choose to not let the plumber in ever, and have no hot water. The landlord could do nothing about that other than start the long eviction process, gain possession, and then let the plumber in.

Wrong, lack of hot water has potential to be any number of issues some very serious like a leak. If a tenant refused access the LL would be within their rights to enter without permission to ensure the issue was not a risk to the property.

stinkbomb wrote: »

Can't see any tenant doing that, but legally they are entitled to do so. You absolutely CAN insist that the tradesman can only do the work when you are there. FACT.

If they have no value on their own time or effort and/or are riddeled with paranoia they can of course do this but despite what you appear to think the vast majority of people are perfectly happy to have a tradesperson there while they are away. Also as above if the tenant won’t make a reasonable effor to allow a visit of the LL/tradesman they can enter to anyway to ensure the property is not at risk.

stinkbomb wrote: »

Still not getting it are you? only the tenant can give permission for anyone to enter the property. Not the landlord. Can't spell it out any more simply for you.

Just because you keep saying this over and over again like a broken record does not make the statement correct (despite far more people telling you otherwise than agreeing you). If any tradesman went by your “rules”’ I or many 10’s of people I know renting would never have got anything fixed in their houses as telling the LL that they had permission to enter or have a tradesman enter is how it was and is commonly done with no contact between the tenant and the tradesman. So if the tradesman went looking for permission I woundn’t be there and he wouldn’t have my number as I didn’t want anything to do with it as id given the LL permission. In fact I’d be annoyed if I was getting called by a tradesman when the LL was supposed to be looking after it.

Your situation is the one that’s rare but for some unknown reason you refuse to accept this.

Graham

Sleeper12 wrote: »

"Landlords and/or their authorised agents may request access at reasonable intervals to carry out repairs or inspections of the property.

Relevant part highlighted.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You've read the above 10 million times. You know a tenant cannot refuse reasonable requests for access for repairs or inspections.

There is a process for such circumstances. Ignoring the RTA is not it.

Sleeper12

Graham wrote:

There is a process for such circumstances. Ignoring the RTA is not it.

A friend of mine wanted access to his rental for his electrician for periodic inspection. Tennant was playing silly beggers insisting he can only go at night or the weekend. Over a period of weeks landlord offered him five different daytime appointments where the electrictrican could fit it in. None suited the tenant & that's fine but he wouldn't offer any daytime appointments that might suit him. Eventually landlord met the electrician there & let him in. Tennant ran amock when he found out. Landlord didn't even have to tell him he was there but did out of spite due to the way he was behaving. Tennant rang threshold who were horrified and helped him repot it to RTB. He hadn't a leg to stand on because the tenant turned a routine visit into an emergency visit. The insurance wouldn't renew the policy without the periodic inspection. Landlord was entitled to enter the property without permission or in fact without the tenant knowing.

The law is never as clear cut as it might seem.

Graham

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The law is never as clear cut as it might seem.

The law in regard to this is quite clear.

If the landlord needs to enter the property (for example for an inspection or to carry out repair) the tenant's consent is required to access the dwelling, and the landlord should give them reasonable notice.

However, if the tenant continually refuses access to the property, they are in breach of their responsibilities. A tenant is entitled to reasonable time to rectify the breach of responsibilities.

A landlord should first write to the tenant, outlining the breach of their responsibility (in this case, not allowing an inspection or a repair to be carried out), and request a mutually agreeable time to carry out repairs or inspections. If the issue persists after the tenant has received the letter, a 28 day notice of termination for breach of tenant responsibilities can be issued.

Source: RTB

There are specific provisions for emergency situations, e.g. fire/flood.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to the adjudication/determination order for the case you mentioned.

Sleeper12

Graham wrote:

There are specific provisions for emergency situations, e.g. fire/flood.

And periodic inspections. Even a flood as you mention. What is a flood? I've had calls from hysterical people (usually women but not exclusively) that I have to come quick, the place is getting flooded. When I get there it could be little more than a drip from a tap or the waste under the sink leaking but only leaking when the tap is running.

A leak can be sufficient reason to go in all guns blazing. It doesn't have to be a flood. There might be arguments later about how bad the leak was but it's still enough to go in. Even a small amount of water can ruin laminate flooring in a very short period of time.

The law isn't clear cut. It can't say that the leak has to be 10 litres per minute. It could be less than one or two litres per hour. When damage is being done to your property you don't (at least I wouldn't) be concerned at that moment in time about the law. Get in. Get it sorted. Take photos and argue it out at a later stage.

Graham

There is no suggestion of any flooding or leaking so your scenario does not apply.

Mod Note
Fair Warning: Suggestions to invent an emergency to circumvent the RTA are a breach of the forum charter.

Sleeper12

Graham wrote:

There is no suggestion of any flooding or leaking so your scenario does not apply.

No there wasn't. You mentioned flooding. I was pointing out that it doesn't have to be a flood.. When there is a leak time is everything. If I find a leak in a wall I smash a great big hole in the plasterboard or damage tiles. Punch holes in ceiling or rip up quality hardwood flooring. I could take my time & be neat and tidy so the hardwood floor will go back nicely but I have to think about the damage that the leak is doing.

I wasn't suggesting faking water damage as an excuse. Forgive me if I didn't explain myself properly. I know sometimes I don't make myself as clear as I think I do. I wouldn't suggest faking water damage or an emergency in real life let alone here on boards.ie. Me mentioning water damage has nothing to do with ops case nor the periodic inspection. It was a totally different conversation following on from the flood you mentioned in the legislation

Graces7

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A friend of mine wanted access to his rental for his electrician for periodic inspection. Tennant was playing silly beggers insisting he can only go at night or the weekend. Over a period of weeks landlord offered him five different daytime appointments where the electrictrican could fit it in. None suited the tenant & that's fine but he wouldn't offer any daytime appointments that might suit him. Eventually landlord met the electrician there & let him in. Tennant ran amock when he found out. Landlord didn't even have to tell him he was there but did out of spite due to the way he was behaving. Tennant rang threshold who were horrified and helped him repot it to RTB. He hadn't a leg to stand on because the tenant turned a routine visit into an emergency visit. The insurance wouldn't renew the policy without the periodic inspection. Landlord was entitled to enter the property without permission or in fact without the tenant knowing.

The law is never as clear cut as it might seem.

The law is very clear cut. Seems from this thread though that some landlords are intent on ignoring or twisting it?

And I do not believe the penultimate sentence either.

ONLY in emergency and this was not that. Like others if that ever happened here the Gardia would be called and charges pressed. As the one who tried it here learned fast.

Your propertry is our home, Privacy is law.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

The law is very clear cut. Seems from this thread though that some landlords are intent on ignoring or twisting it?

And I do not believe the penultimate sentence either.

ONLY in emergency and this was not that. Like others if that ever happened here the Gardia would be called and charges pressed. As the one who tried it here learned fast.

Your propertry is our home, Privacy is law.

The guards would laugh at you if you tried to “press charges” against a plumber doing his job.

By the time the Gardaí arrived he would be finished his job and long gone anyway.

Sleeper12

Graces7 wrote:

ONLY in emergency and this was not that. Like others if that ever happened here the Gardia would be called and charges pressed. As the one who tried it here learned fast.

You seem to argue for the sake of arguing. The periodic inspection is usually reserved for older buildings. It's where an electrician goes in and inspects everything including fusebox, wiring, sockets and lighting. This is a safety inspection. Insurance companies require this on old rental property from time to time. Without the periodic inspection it could not be proved if the building was safe. This in itself can be classified as an emergency. Added to the safety concerns was the fact that the bui would have no insurance without the certificate. If there was a fire & Tennant got badly injured or died there would be no insurance in place.

You might not believe it to be an emergency & you are entitled to that opinion however your opinion was irrelevant in this case. A landlord does not have to justify himself to every Tom, dick and Harry. So long as he is able to convince the governing body that is all that matters.

On the same point the landlord didn't care if he got into trouble. It was more important to him to ensure that his building wasn't a fire hazard and safe for the tenant. It was vital to him to have full insurance cover to protect himself and his tenant. Sometimes you have to act immediately and pay the consequences, if there are any.

Driving instructor on the radio a few weeks ago. Told a story where learner driver almost hit a opening car door rather than break a solid white line with no oncoming traffic. Obviously this is nuts. Break the white line to avoid an accident. If it's found that you broke the law then you pay the fine but no lives will be in danger.

Graces7

This post of course has nothing to do with the thread.
Which in itself says far more about you.

A workman entered a house without knocking, without express permission from the tenant who had expressly and rightly made provision against this.

Because there was a young girl alone and asleep.

Nothing to do with routine inspections etc.

It was illegal entry. Invasion of peace and privacy.

OK?

OK!

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You seem to argue for the sake of arguing. The periodic inspection is usually reserved for older buildings. It's where an electrician goes in and inspects everything including fusebox, wiring, sockets and lighting. This is a safety inspection. Insurance companies require this on old rental property from time to time. Without the periodic inspection it could not be proved if the building was safe. This in itself can be classified as an emergency. Added to the safety concerns was the fact that the bui would have no insurance without the certificate. If there was a fire & Tennant got badly injured or died there would be no insurance in place.

You might not believe it to be an emergency & you are entitled to that opinion however your opinion was irrelevant in this case. A landlord does not have to justify himself to every Tom, dick and Harry. So long as he is able to convince the governing body that is all that matters.

On the same point the landlord didn't care if he got into trouble. It was more important to him to ensure that his building wasn't a fire hazard and safe for the tenant. It was vital to him to have full insurance cover to protect himself and his tenant. Sometimes you have to act immediately and pay the consequences, if there are any.

Driving instructor on the radio a few weeks ago. Told a story where learner driver almost hit a opening car door rather than break a solid white line with no oncoming traffic. Obviously this is nuts. Break the white line to avoid an accident. If it's found that you broke the law then you pay the fine but no lives will be in danger.

Sleeper12

Graces7 wrote:

This post of course has nothing to do with the thread. Which in itself says far more about you.

I'll leave it there.

You'd argue with your shadow given the chance.