Tenant refusing viewings after being served Section 21?

Reply to the comment left by DSR at 17/03/2023 - 08:29
Appreciate your response and also understand that you don't have to have a reason. However things have changed/changing massively in the PRS and despite doing everything right, odds are heavily stacked against the LL in my opinion. Good luck anyway.

Reply to the comment left by AJ at 16/03/2023 - 15:00
AJ

Although you can serve a s21 notice without specifying a reason, if you have done so just because you can, that is odd - this is the sort of thing that gets the anti-landlord lobby wound up and why we are heading to a situation where s21 may be removed from us.

It is well known to landlords that not all aspects of agreements are readily enforceable, especially where breach is considered relatively minor or a one off. The same actually goes for most contracts - look at the BBC and Gary Lineker!

A good agent will be able to discuss with a tenant what they propose, but if the the tenants don't engage there's no way to force the discussion. As for reminding the tenants of the consequences, well what are they? You have served notice so they're going anyway. What else do you expect?

As for your final caution - this is why new landlords need to take good advice at the outset and why a good agent is necessary. Having done the job as agent and landlord for 30 years I am baffled by landlords who think they can do everything themselves.

Reply to the comment left by Julesgflawyer at 17/03/2023 - 08:34
Except you're conflating *actual* experience (of things you've had success with), with theory (things you've not had any experience with). So we're back to where I started.

It's nothing personal, but right from University, The Law Society draws you all in to a very strange way of thinking. It's not all that dissimilar to religious teachings in Latin. You'll likely believe we have a fantastic system, because you enjoy it. The layering of laws on top of those that have past, precedent being the guiding light and the challenge of 'doing battle' and winning by finding some nuanced detail then convincing the system you're both smart and correct. It's nonsensical theatre that exists to sustain itself.

There's no real reason for lawyers to exist. Except there is...under the current system and the unnecessary way in which it operates. It is the system that should change. What we really need is the equivalent of the Latin teachings translated into English and the congregation can not only read for themselves, but can both challenge those that used to give their own, very human and biased interpretation. So, yes...solicitors live in a bubble. Granted, it's a very real bubble, but one of self-perpetuation that grows ever more removed from reality. Kinda like our system of government and Parliament. Like our tax code. They all have one thing in common...legal bods.

Regardless, an injunction for viewings during a notice is completely impractical.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 17/03/2023 - 11:56
It's a US example, but one I saw recently that is and would be most bizarre by any normal person's standard...

Someone was having an interaction with the police that had just turned up to the most minor of barely-heated conversations between a library-user and the receptionist. The guy was from out of town and went inside to ask about the parking restrictions (the signs didn't seem to match). The woman behind the desk appeared to have never interacted with a human before and the conversation didn't seem to get very far. You know what Yanks can be like...'calling the cops' for personal disagreements over nothing.

The police arrived, for a brief moment just stood in the doorway assessing what was being said between the two parties. This wasn't an argument, just a guy asking a reasonable question to a staff member that was incompetent to handle the interaction and reached for the police at the first difficulty.

The chap had had enough and wanted to leave the library. By this point, the police had moved out of the doorway to one side. They asked the chap to take a seat, but he declined, following up by asking (using normal language/words) if he was being detained. They confirmed that he was not. He then proceeded to leave.

It was later argued (by a lawyer) that whilst they acknowledged the chap's verbal question and the officer's verbal response, that if the observed intention (e.g. body-language) was one that he *might* be detained, then in fact that was communicable enough to in fact indicate that he was indeed detained...despite words to the contrary (and for this, they were leaning on the short momentary pausing in the doorway by the police, which was long before his question re detention, as 'evidence').

Aside from the primary means of communication between humans being verbal, even if one were to accept the whole body-language thing, why (and how is one to even know) which one wins out in a scenario if both methods of communication are at odds?

The answer is that the law was never intended to be interpreted in the way the lawyer twisted it. You might even have a wry smile in admiration for his abilities, but society doesn't thank you for adding yet more unnecessary complication to our lives.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 17/03/2023 - 11:56
I think we agree to differ. I'm here for the same reason as everyone else, ie sharing views and experience. If that's unwelcome, so be it.

Hmm....is it just me or is this thread going above and beyond?
As (presumably) property investors this site has always served to get good valuable insight to experiences we have (or could face) at any time.
Let's not make it more complicated than it already is!

Law trumps anything you have in a contract

Get Mark Dawson AST on the job

Reply to the comment left by Graham Bowcock at 14/03/2023 - 11:40
Hi
You can claim damages for them not allowing viewing as this will delay you finding a tenant.
So if its in the contract that must allow viewing in the last month and they signed it then they are in breach and you can get back the last months rent via the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Or whatever scheme you are in.
If you can prove this delayed you getting another tenant for a month then its consequential losses.
Get evidence via trying to arrange viewings with them otherwise you won’t get the last months’ rent back. So don’t just accept this non-cooperation as its out of order and costing you money!
You should have insurance to cover you against defaulting tenants that will pay your rent. Once you have issued a section 21 then insurance company will take over if the tenant is in breach and is not paying you.
I have just had a tenant that would not let me in for the same reason and has done quite a bit of damage. I was also not allowed to get in to do maintenance.
I claimed about £9000 via the government DPS and I got back all their deposit of £1800 for various breaches and damage.
Make a list of all consequential losses. If the DPS cant help sue them in the small claims court.

Reply to the comment left by Mark W at 18/03/2023 - 07:53
Yes, in principle. But damages like these should reflect actual losses. Hard to see how a claim for £9k would be proved. The tenant's breach must *cause* the loss claimed. Causation isn't always easy to prove.

Is seems to me that S21 is just a paper tiger given to landlords that the tenants use to their full advantage.

A S21 is often issued due to the tenant violating their AST on numerous occasions so the landlord issues this notice to leave. Once received, it’s normal for the tenant to stay put, stop paying their rent and that’s where a new set of problems begin

Landlords may as well go straight to court action and bailiffs