Viewings on my current rental property

DesperateDan

pc7 wrote: »

I think you are being unreasonable especially that it is in your lease. The estate agent isn't going to let someone go through your underwear drawer, it is a viewing. People view other peoples houses every day, its part of the reason we have estate agents.

Speak for yourself, when I view properties the underwear drawer is my first port of call.

voluntary

Fol20 wrote: »

A much easier way to give a “bad” reference is to play it like the OP playbook. Simply decline to give a reference or keep making excuses everytime the tenant calls for one. This can be very telling especially if they have a renting gap of a few years. The ll also covers themself. If i get a call about a bad tenant. Do the same. Just decline to comment. People can read between the lines and figure it out themself.

But here's the thing. The tenant is pretty much unlikely to need references from the landlord. There are basically two scenarios:

1. Tenant gave the notice himself, he already found a new place so no need for references
2. Landlord gave notice to the tenant. In this case LL would be stupid to give bad references. It's in LL best interest that the tenant finds a new place and don't overstay.

.......

voluntary wrote: »

+ Such clause in the tenancy agreement wouldn't be valid anyway.

Can you back this assertion or is it just more wild fantasy?

voluntary

....... wrote: »

Can you back this assertion or is it just more wild fantasy?

Such clause would be in conflict with the basic tenants' rights. So in fact null/invalid.

You can only amend contracts in favor of a tenant, not against. You can't limit tenant's basic rights by adding clauses to agreements.

.......

voluntary wrote: »

Such clause would be in conflict with the basic tenants' rights. So in fact null/invalid.

You can only amend contracts in favor of a tenant, not against. You can't limit tenant's basic rights by adding clauses to agreements.

How exactly would it be "in conflict with the basic tenants' rights" anymore than say, inspections?

As I suspected, you are back in the realms of wild fantasy.

Fol20

voluntary wrote: »

But here's the thing. The tenant is pretty much unlikely to need references from the landlord. There are basically two scenarios:

1. Tenant gave the notice himself, he already found a new place so no need for references
2. Landlord gave notice to the tenant. In this case LL would be stupid to give bad references. It's in LL best interest that the tenant finds a new place and don't overstay.

So basically you want to have their cake and eat it?

You want the tenant to have the ability to cost the ll money by declining viewings, which they may be entitled to be awkward about within reason. At the same time you want the ll to give glowing references. All i would do is offer to do references after they hand the keys back and then blank them.

You say you were a ll yet you are making extreme cases for the defense of tenants. I have also noticed other pro tenant comments in other threads and if you were a ll, you would at least experience it from both angles however all the comments i have noticed recently are not neutral but pro tenant.

Yes i can see your point about overstaying however there can be ways around this.

voluntary

....... wrote: »

How exactly would it be "in conflict with the basic tenants' rights" anymore than say, inspections?

Viewing is not an inspection. You're welcome to come and inspect.
Inspection, repair and emergency - these are the grounds a tenants is obliged to let you/maintenance person in the property.

It's a waste of time really. If you're a LL then I'd suggest you check at source, email RTB and you'll get response in a day or two, they're pretty responsive in my experience.

Fol20

Fol20 wrote: »

So basically you want to have their cake and eat it?

You want the tenant to have the ability to cost the ll money by declining viewings, which they may be entitled to be awkward about within reason. At the same time you want the ll to give glowing references. All i would do is offer to do references after they hand the keys back and then blank them.

You say you were a ll yet you are making extreme cases for the defense of tenants. I have also noticed other pro tenant comments in other threads and if you were a ll, you would at least experience it from both angles however all the comments i have noticed recently are not neutral but pro tenant.

Yes i can see your point about overstaying however there can be ways around this.

So what you are saying is that a tenant could be the best you've ever had but, because they value their home and privacy, you will give them no reference?

Nice...

.......

voluntary wrote: »

Viewing is not an inspection. You're welcome to come and inspect.
Inspection, repair and emergency - these are the grounds a tenants is obliged to let you/maintenance person in the property.

It's a waste of time really. If you're a LL then I'd suggest you check at source, email RTB and you'll get response in a day or two, they're pretty responsive in my experience.

Oh - so its ok for a repair man to come in - you dont have to DISINFECT the entire property because someone WALKED into it?

Im afraid you lost all credibility with your silly disinfecting suggestion earlier and then compounded it when you were caught out contradicting yourself by another poster.

Cant possibly take anything else you say seriously.

voluntary

voluntary wrote: »

And some LL here think it's basically LL's right to do so.
Some suggestions were that LL can treaten tenant with giving bad references for his next home. A disgrace really.

Just so we're clear, there are people on both sides of the landlord/tenant spectrum advising both courses of action. There are clearly people who are/were tenants saying it is unreasonable to not allow viewings and equally there are landlords saying they've no issues with waiting until after it's been vacated. Implying otherwise is dishonest and only fuels the "us vs them" attitude.

voluntary wrote: »

Such clause would be in conflict with the basic tenants' rights. So in fact null/invalid.

You can only amend contracts in favor of a tenant, not against. You can't limit tenant's basic rights by adding clauses to agreements.

You are correct that you cannot contract out of your statutory rights (in this case, peaceful enjoyment of the property without interference from the LL). I'd argue, however, that a clause which provides for showing of the property to new tenants does not constitute a breach of those rights. Just showing up without prior notice or letting yourself in unannounced would be a breach.


The standard clause usually has something like the following:

Within the last 1 month of the tenancy to permit the Landlord, or any person authorised by the Landlord or the Landlord's Agent at reasonable hours of the day or night, to enter and view the property with prospective Tenants or purchasers.

That in itself is not a breach, in my opinion. But, like I said, if you really wanted to wriggle your way out of it you can just agree a time and date then cancel last minute saying it doesn't suit.

voluntary

How's 'the last month' different than any other? Tenants get some discount for this 'special' period?

Bluefoam

voluntary wrote: »

How's 'the last month' different than any other? Tenants get some discount for this 'special' period?

You either think its a breach of your rights & requires anti bacterial disinfection... or you want to be compensated because you want money for your time & effort...

You can't argue both. Either you want money or you want your peace.

However, due to your past form, I think your a troll, dishonest & discourtious, so I don't believe a word of it.

.......

Bluefoam wrote: »

You either think its a breach of your rights & requires anti bacterial disinfection... or you want to be compensated because you want money for your time & effort...

You can't argue both. Either you want money or you want your peace.

However, due to your past form, I think your a troll, dishonest & discourtious, so I don't believe a word of it.

+1

Wind Up Merchant specifically posting to wind people up - contradicting herself in the effort to annoy people.

voluntary

Ad hominem arguments lads. Move on.

Bluefoam

voluntary wrote: »

Ad hominem arguments lads. Move on.

No, I'm actually just refering to your form on this thread, you seem to be sending this thread around in circles & are highly aggitated. I don't have a horse in this race being neither a tenant or a landlord, but I do recognise that the OP's original comment is both selfish and socially obstructive. Society only works if we give and take, but it seems the OP & the Troll don't agree with that.

Previous form, just lies:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109918382&postcount=97

Although a good troll is always prepared with a defense...

voluntary

voluntary wrote: »

How's 'the last month' different than any other? Tenants get some discount for this 'special' period?

It's different because that's when viewings normally occur. To have that in as a blanket clause to be carried out whenever the LL wishes might constitute a breach of the statutory rights we were just talking about. You do realize that, yeah? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Gumbo

Mod Note

Voluntary banned for one week for trolling.
Inconsistent posts that contradict each other to ignite trolling or arguments are not welcome.

On a side note, I think the thread has ran its course as it will continue to go around in circles.

The OP can make an informed decision based on their own research or from this thread in consultation with their own lease arrangements.