Tenant declining access for surveyor until post eviction?

Grin and bare it, nothing you can do – at all. You can show up, but the if the tenant doesn’t let you in, you can’t just barge in. Wait until the tenant has been evicted

Reply to the comment left by Chris Byways at 29/07/2021 – 17:40
Disagree with you chris, quiet enjoyment is a term set out in the statute, it’s not a contractual term and to state that it is, is flat wrong. Any contractual term that says a landlord can enter in the last month is legally incorrect, it is completely at the descretion of the tennant, only where there is a genuine emergency are you entitled to enter.

What is considered an emergecy is open to interpretation, but if a law is broken (or suspected of being broken) it’s the court who makes that determination.

You can enter a term in the AST stating that you are entitled to enter in the last month, and 9 out of 10 times the bluff will work, but one day you could find yourself at the wrong end of a gable.

So the NRLA are bluffing when they say (June 2021 AST) “2.48 Allow possible new tenants, valuers and buyers access to the property (on at least 24 hours’ written notice) during the tenancy.” Obviously if the Tenant is in and refuses, then there is no access, but if not in, you are saying the NRLA are wrong and you can not enter after the 24hr Notice?

If tenant writes saying access denied for the above purposes, and that delays re-letting, is the tenant liable for the losses incurred?

@TrevL is correct ( unfortunately )

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 29/07/2021 – 13:26
My shothand version is: give the tenant 2 weeks to clear their stuff. If not cleared you can dispose/sell/reuse whatever.

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 31/07/2021 – 17:42
But is the tenant liable for the extra costs for the month’s delay in re-letting? (For refusing the access that they signed up to, of their own free will, and after being advised to take legal advice before signing) – seems tenant can ignore AST, but landlord has to or pay dearly.

Oh to be the provider of decent accommodation!

Reply to the comment left by Chris Byways at 31/07/2021 – 18:52
No. The tenant cannot be compelled to pay any of the landlord’s additional costs.

So I guess that is another way rogue tenants can cause havoc. Simply ignore their ‘obligations’ in the AST, Decline all Access to allow the agreed marketing in the LAST month only, no photos, no viewings, no check or repair or ordering of things they have broken.

So marketing only starts AFTER they leave, an EXTRA month of lost rent, full council tax, utilities. So a 6 month AST only provides at most 4 months of rent IF they even choose to pay!

No more 6m ASTs for me.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Byways at 02/08/2021 – 09:19
You’re right. But this is nothing new. The right to quiet enjoyment is statutory and long-standing. The AST terms cannot override this provision.

You can start marketing whilst the tenants are in, but viewings/marketing visits etc. have to be agreed with them.

In most cases there isn’t a practical problem.

It’s part of doing business.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Byways at 31/07/2021 – 18:52
@Chris Byways, – Graham has already answered this. The closest I think you could get to this is bringing either a deposit claim ( unlikely to fare well, as many of them are not overly generous to the Landlords predicament ) or bringing a County Court claim ( MCOL, very easy ) against the, by now – ex-tenant.
You’d want evidence of requests by you in a recordable form, Texts or email, and negative responses, the cruder the better, from the tenant.
Even better if you’ve taken a Guarantor, to include them both on the same MCOL.