Tenant refusing viewings after being served Section 21?

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 14/03/2023 - 12:35Again, I totally agree: no point in doing a viewing if a tenant won't let you through the door or give a negative commentary to viewings but Yes my understanding of the definition does differ from yours. So I went to have a look at definitions and these are the first three randomly chosen:
• "Quiet enjoyment is the right to peaceably and quietly enjoy the premises without interruption of possession." (a viewing/viewings surely cannot be construed as possession?)
• "This means that the landlord must respect the tenancy, not turn up unannounced, or disturb the tenant in any way without first giving them sufficient and reasonable notice. Typically, if you want to visit a rental property, you must give your tenants at least 24 hours notice in writing that you wish to attend."
• "Section 9A (8) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 is about when a landlord or a contractor can enter a tenant's home. Unless in an emergency, like a flood or fire, entry is only allowed at a reasonable time and if the tenant has had at least 24 hours‚ notice in writing."
These don't seem to ally with yours? Anyway, just grateful that this is not an issue that I am having to contend with. At the moment!

Reply to the comment left by Londonlandlord at 16/03/2023 - 15:48
1: "without interruption of possession":
possession implies the right to allow or deny entry

2: this sounds like someone's attempt at simplification rather than a legal definition

3: Section 9A (8) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 is in the context of fitness for human habitation and implies a covenant that the landlord or his representative may enter the dwelling for the purpose of viewing its condition and state of repair, not for any other purpose and subject to the restrictions that you quoted.

Several sources say that there is an immediate right of access in case of emergency but can anyone refer me to the authority for this?

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 16/03/2023 - 21:33
In reality such contracts have little value unless opportunity exists for future value between both parties through their relationship - or of course they are tested through legal proceedings.

OP is best to give the tenants an incentive as mentioned, rather than masked threats - to keep tenents onside - e.g. payment for viewings, or stop charging rent once sale agreed.

Thread does seem to suggest though OP has issued the section 21 to re-rent at an increased montly payment, so payment for viewings likely best option.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 16/03/2023 - 14:57
The courts will grant injunctions to protect and enforcement proprietary rights unless there is a valid reason not to do so, eg it would be disproportionate, unconscionable or oppressive. If L complies with the notice requirements in the agt, and T refuses access, then, particularly if that is repeated, I cannot conceive of a county court judge refusing an injunction. It may not happen much in practice, and of course the vast majority of interim injunction applications in the CC are not reported. Doesn't mean the principle is sound.

Reply to the comment left by Julesgflawyer at 17/03/2023 - 00:11
“Doesn't mean the principle is[n’t??] sound.”

…so as was said, just theory, then.

I do understand, though…lawyers are paid win, lose or draw and easily get stuck in this bubble.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 17/03/2023 - 00:26
Sounds like you've had a bad experience. Maybe you need better (not necessarily more expensive) advisors?

Reply to the comment left by Julesgflawyer at 17/03/2023 - 00:53
I was waiting for that, but no…barely used a solicitor before. But I know enough to know their perception bubble is real and so very many theorise. It’s a hangover from the reasonably involved study days. And not too dissimilar to how politicians operate. They start to believe they’re more important than they are and that if they can think it, it can be put into practice. Except the real-world is slightly different…because it’s not run on theoretical ideals.

I was right, though…you’ve never got an injunction for viewings. Because it’s preposterous. Possible on paper; reality…? Almost never.

Reply to the comment left by Julesgflawyer at 17/03/2023 - 00:11
Thanks for that explanation.

Reply to the comment left by RoseD at 16/03/2023 - 00:27
its not a no fault eviction. There is a reason - it just does not have to be declared.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 17/03/2023 - 05:19
Ah, that would the "perceptual bubble" that is actually working with the law and the courts every day.