CP12 gas safety certificate

Reply to the comment left by "All BankersAreBarstewards Smith" at "29/05/2014 - 10:46":

I will try to find some case details for you, meantime you may wish to read this article on the Inside Housing website to get an idea of the scale of this problem >>> http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/landlord-access-for-gas-safety/7003773.article
.

Reply to the comment left by "All BankersAreBarstewards Smith" at "29/05/2014 - 10:46":

“Protection from Eviction Act 1977”
Section 1
Unlawful eviction and harassment
s.1(3A) (as was amended by the Housing Act 1988) which states:
"the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household."
The individual carrying out any inspection will be personally criminally liable, and could face arrest by the police on the above charge. Likewise the agency as a corporate entity may face criminal investigation.
Also any attempt to enter the premises without your consent will treated as, as a matter of civil law:
a. trespass; and
b. a breach of the quiet enjoyment clause under the tenancy agreement."

There are some useful parallels in this document but I think I can still do better and find a case much more similar to that being discussed. I suspect what you are really interested to know is the financial penalties imposed. I read a lot of cases like this a few years ago.
.

See HSE guidelines (http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/landlords/dealing.htm). This covers situations where you are denied access. As long as you can demonstrate that you have continually tried to get the gas safe engineer an appointment to do the gas safe checks then you should be ok. Outside of that there is nothing legally that you can do, however, if one of my tenants behaved in this way I would be serving a section 21 very quickly. I would do this not because of any associated gas risks but because as far as I am concerned this behaviour is un-tenant like.

Reply to the comment left by "Rob Crawford" at "29/05/2014 - 11:49":

I'm with you on that Rob.

If, however, they have plenty of time to run on a fixed term contract the s21 route isn't an option. For this reason we aim to have at least 6 months left on the CP12 prior to letting and if not we get one done between tenancies.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "29/05/2014 - 11:08":

Not to enter into this debate again, but it is not clear how the landlord would be harassing or breaching quiet enjoyment by giving notice then gaining access to carry out a gas safety check.
Can it be trespass if the landlord has a right of entry?
Then what would be the damages imposed on a landlord who acted according to his right of access to the benefit of the tenant?

IMHO that quote from an old LandlordZone discussion is rather heavy-handed, to say the least.

I'd really like to find an actual court case on this.

Of course, it is wise to be cautious, and indeed a landlord should think twice before doing anything.
Liaising with the council and HSE is really important, in my view.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "29/05/2014 - 12:52":

The landlord has no right of entry without a Court order if the tenant declines. Mitigating circumstances may be applied by a judge if, for example, the house is actually on fire but otherwise I doubt very much that any sympathy would be shown to a landlord who enters a tenants property after right of access has been refused by a tenant.

I'd like to bet that the tenant of AA-Wales and his solicitor are waiting like coiled springs in anticipation of the law being broken. I may, however, just be getting cynical in my old age LOL
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "29/05/2014 - 12:56":

I'm not convinced, but that's just personal opinion as I haven't any court case to back it up.

Show me your solicitor and I'll show you mine: AA could have his own solicitor send a stern letter that if access is not granted within 7 days they'll get a court order and have the tenant bear all the cost. Not complying with such an order would be contempt of court.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "29/05/2014 - 13:09":

Why not trump the solicitor and ask a Barrister to do it?

Might cost less too!

Here's the man I would talk too >>> http://www.property118.com/member/?id=1945
.

Hi Mark,

I have seen this debate go back and forth and I think the group is taking this in the wrong direction.

The landlord has a right of entry even if it is not explicit in the tenancy agreement it is implied. He has not absolutely parted with possession or granted the tenant an absolute right to exclude him

The right to entry however must be exercised 'reasonably' . Which to the bloke on the bus to Clapham or a High Court judge will likely mean:-

For a good reason, eg repairs or a periodic inspection

At the convienience of both parties, so by agreement

With reasonable notice.

All these 'tests' will depend on the circumstances on the day. So if water is pouring through the property and the tenant is out, the landlord gaining access immediately without notice is reasonable to protect his property, the tenants property and anyone else who might be affected.

In the case of non emergency repairs, the law will not penalise the landlord if he makes arrangements for an appointment to access the property to do maintenance or repair, particularly if it also plainly in the tenants interest from a safety point of view.

The intention of the protection from eviction legislation is to prevent landlords taking possession by harassment or intimidation and prevent landlords entering the property outside the rules above.

Therefore if the landlord makes an appointment in advance he can reasonably expect access at that time. If it is inconvienient for the tenant for whatever reason, the tenant must act reasonably by seeking to arrange an alternative time or date.

If you show up at the time of the appointment and the tenant won't let you in but refuses to make an alternative, then the tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreements terms and you should advise (quietly and politely) that you will take action to terminate the tenancy unless he consents to access.

That normally sets the tenant straight. If he is not there, you have advised him of your intention so you can enter and do what you need to do, taking reasonable care of his stuff as you go.

If you don't get into a row with the tenant and do exactly what you have advised then you won't be liable. Neither the Police nor Local Authorities will take a case on this where the landlord has acted reasonably.

If anyone can cite a case where a landlord who has acted reasonably has been convicted under this legislation I'd be glad to see it.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "29/05/2014 - 14:30":

Hi John

I am in agreement with everything you have said.

All I am saying in addition to what you have said is that if the tenant continually refuses access that eviction or a Court order are the only legal remedies available to the landlord.

If AA now enters the landlords premises, after having been denied access by both the tenant and having had this confirmed in writing by the tenants solicitor and in the absence of a Court order, then he will be in a lot of trouble.
.
.