tenant refusing entry

[lolly371]

hi can anybody help? my friend rents a house out and is unsure what to do in this situation. she has arranged for the annual gas safety check to be carried out but when the engineer turned up to the property at the pre arranged time, the tenant had decided to go out. he left a note and gave the tenant a call later on. they rearranged a time,(monday afternoon) but on the day they arranged the tenant called the engineer to say they needed to be there no later than 1.30 as they were going out. engineer said he would see what he could do but as they had previously arranged some time in the afternoon, it was unreasonable to drop this on him. they had an argument about being messed around, and now the tenant has contacted my friend and said that he is not prepared to let the engineer in the property. where does she stand in this situation? by law, she must ensure these checks are carried out, but if she cant get into the property, shes stuck.

[MrShed]

This subject has come up for discussion before. As long as your friend can prove "due dilligence" - ie she can prove that she attempted to arrange and gain access on a number of occasions in order to perform the gas safety certificate - then this should be sufficient. However, as always courts can go funny on these things, and not worth just relying on this - I would advise eviction as soon as possible.

[Joa]

Originally Posted by MrShed

I would advise eviction as soon as possible.

That's a bit harsh, huh?
God, I am glad you ain't my landlord, we would end up in casualty! LOL

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

Yes,I agree totally with Mr.Shed here.

BECAUSE...

1.The reason being is that the failure to maintain a gas boiler/appliances/heating system can have serious impact on an owner including a very heavy fine and the fact it is a criminal offence on the part of the landlord.

2.In my view,the tenant is in breach of the express term i.e.whether written in the tenancy agreement or not to allow to owner access.So,this clause can be use to evict the tenant.

3.If the tenancy agreement is outside the fixed term the owner should be able to evict using the shorthold rule.

FINALLY...

It may also be a good idea to contact the company that supplies the gas to the property and inform it of the situation.This is so that if access remains not granted the owner would have shown to have done her best to remedy the situation.This also has wider implications i.e.safety of the tenant/ neighbours and the public at large and the tenant will probably give in in the end and grant access to the property.

Anyway,this is my 2p's worth!

[Joa]

You two are comedians, really, you should have your own show on Paramount! So you'd advise a costly, aggressive, stressful action, which could cost a tenant a home and a landlord a rental income (void properties are nightmare!)???
On what planet is that a good advice?
On a "I've read few books" planet?

How about a dose of reality: advise to negotiate!! The tenant and a landlord could not get an access details right twice...two times....only. Then we are told they've had an argument. Maybe the engineer was a silly person, maybe the tenant was a thicko, God knows. More importantly: you don't know. You get a third-hand story. Does it sound like a good scenario for eviction advice? Nope.
Does it sound to you like a good reason for mediation? Cause it does for me. And I do this every day.

Eviction. My a***.

[Joa]

tsk, made me loose my tempah!
sorry guys, it's just that when exact details of the case are unknown, I don't think it's a good practice to advise the the most severe solution.

[GlasweJen]

As Joa says the full story isn't clear, why did the tenant refuse to let the gas man in? I once refused to let someone in because he couldn't prove who he was, the guy went mental and started shouting that he had a job to do so i shut the door on him. The landlord then went mental because it was something to do with the council and the HMO but like hell he was getting into my house without something to say who he was when no one else was about.

Eviction is a bit extreme, perhaps arranging for the gas man to visit along with the landlord at the right time would work better, threatening further action if the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to comply with health and safety stuff?

[lolly371]

thanks for all suggestions. i have to say eviction does sound a bit harsh. i think this is the first time she has had any trouble with this tenant, so she wants to find a way to resolve it amicably. she has had no end of problems over the last few years and lost a lot of money from rent arrears, standing empty, vandalism from a previous tenant, etc, so she wont be too hasty. to clarify, though, she can insist on entry, then?

[Joa]

Yep, she can insist and try her best to be allowed in. What she cannot do is use force, try to enter without permission when tenants are not at home or bully tenant in any way.. She can contact her EHO who can help her to negotiate with the tenant.
No tenant would refuse entry to a properly identified contractor if refusal could mean being blown up or poisoned by fumes.

[lolly371]

Originally Posted by Jenschnifer

why did the tenant refuse to let the gas man in?

he was aware of who the guy was, they arranged the second visit between themselves and things only became awkward when he decided to mess the arranged time around at the last minute. the engineer understandably became a little annoyed, and thats when the tenant refused to deal with him.

Originally Posted by Jenschnifer

perhaps arranging for the gas man to visit along with the landlord at the right time would work better, threatening further action if the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to comply with health and safety stuff?

i will suggest that to her, it sounds a fair suggestion to me, thanks Jenschnifer

[Chesterexpress]

I would give them one last chance, plus the engineer ought to bill the landlord who in turn would invoice his tenant for the costs incurred by being messed about. If that fails then do as Mr shed says and evict them.

[MrShed]

Hang on Joa and Jen. I agree the full story isnt clear. However, two points are clear, and are the only points that are required IMO.

- The tenant has refused access to the property to have a gas safety check done. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the tenant has said he WILL NOT GRANT access.
- The landlord can have very serious consequences, even a manslaughter charge, should these checks not be done. Due diligence is all well and good, and would probably cover your back, but I would not be risking my professional and personal future on "probably".

If I was this landlord, I would be taking zero chances. In fact, I have personally been in this situation before, and did not take any chances.

As a landlord, probably the single most important thing to ensure is that you have a gas safety certificate, as it can cause the most severe consequences. Therefore in my view, a tenant refusing to allow this check to happen is the biggest no-no the tenant can do, way over and above damage to the property and rent arrears.

[Nightmare4banks]

Joa,

If I am comedian,let it be!

At the end of the day an owner MUST see to carry out the gas safety checks and failing to do so could cause serious problems i.e.gas leaks which I can assure you and as you are aware IS NOT LAUGHING GAS or funny in any way.Especially considering the fact that gas appliances in a residential premises can be extermely dangerous if not seen to be maintained.

Personally,I would rather evict a tenant like this type of tenant (total disregard/contempt for the owner/him/herself and the public at large) than worry about possibly getting fined or even worse as Mr.Shed stated a manslaughter charge and really hefty fine.This is not a sort of issue that you can mediate over.

Mediate,my a**!

A responsible and caring landlord is very firm and equally really fair at the same time.

What I have just posted is regardless of the the original poster's specific problem.

[Ed999]

Originally Posted by lolly371

the tenant has contacted my friend and said that he is not prepared to let the engineer in the property.

Joa, I think perhaps you've overlooked that.

If, in breach of contract, the tenant refuses access then the landlord can obtain an injunction in court to compel the tenant to comply with the express term of the tenancy agreement as to access.

If there is no express term in the tenancy agreement, section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 implies a term into the tenancy agreement that the tenant shall give the landlord access to the property, for carrying out the landlord's obligations under that Act. Again, if the tenant refuses access then the landlord can obtain an injunction in court.

The alternative is, indeed, to serve a section 21 notice. This need not be followed up by a court application, but it may bring a touch of reality to the tenant. If it does not, then it can indeed be followed up by a court application.

[Joa]

I haven't overlooked that, guys. I am not in a habit of "overlooking" most crucial bits of a third-hand story.
I have focused on those major issues:
(1) once again-you know zilch about the facts, zilch I tell you. We hear a story from a friend of a landlady who was told by the engineer that the tenant messed him around.
(2)you don't know whether the tenant is not prepared to let this particular contractor in (cause he was rude/offensive/threatening/etc). What do you know about the tenant having to change the pre-arranged appointment? Zilch. So what now? Still ready to jump in?
(3) what is most desired outcome, based on common sense and experience, in dispute cases, for tenant and a landlord? Amicable resolution, that's what it is. And that's what the OP's friend is going to go for thank the Lord.
(4)

i think this is the first time she has had any trouble with this tenant

Yup, never mind the potential loss of income, lack of previous history of trouble; evict the guy!
(5)

Personally,I would rather evict a tenant like this type of tenant (total disregard/contempt for the owner/him/herself and the public at large) than worry about possibly getting fined or even worse as Mr.Shed stated a manslaughter charge and really hefty fine.

Jesus Christ what a statement to make about someone you don't know absolutely nothing about. Now, tell me, in your extensive experience, eh, when did you lately deal with manslaughter charges? Honestly!
Now, boys, listen carefully to mama; I like you and your eagerness, you are getting better and better everyday, but you never, never jump in with irresponsible advice like that! Ask further question, try to establish facts, always consider alternative resolution - or you are risking that someone is going to take you seriously! Forget about sounding pompous and unpractical!
And finally, chill guys, you are well known experts here, albeit with lack of everyday experience, your egos are not the focus, my "learned friends", right? What counts is that the punters are given proper assistance.