Updating post from Reddit.
[deleted]
Tell them if they refuse you will issue a s21 notice because you will have to sell the property as you can't remortgage it!
I reckon the tenants are worried about the property being sold so are making it difficult to prevent it. Just explain that the valuation is exclusively for remortgaging, unrelated to rent rates and there is no intention to sell.
Of explain to the tenants that their current rent rates are entirely dependant on you remortgaging.
If they don’t allow it the you’ll have to increase the rent due to the additional costs incurred.
You should inform the tenant that eviction may be necessary if they cannot accommodate, as their failure to do so increases your costs and makes their tenancy unsustainable.
You can offer an incentive for the inconvenience, such as a cash back option.
In the future, you may have the option to obtain longer-term fixed or tracker rates that do not require regular property valuations.
You can only explore Product Switch options with your current lender, as long as there is no additional borrowing; it typically doesn’t require a valuation.
If your mortgage has a low loan-to-value ratio and there are significant recently sold comparables in the area, your mortgage lender may perform a desktop valuation. However, this decision ultimately depends on their criteria.
Perhaps they can have quiet enjoyment of a tent after you have had to sell after not getting a remortgage. S21 is next step
They won’t be happy with a drive by.
There should be a clause in the AST that stipulates they must let in whomsoever you decide with sufficient notice.
Couldn’t you accompany the surveyor on his visit, after you have given tenant sufficient notice?
Such a clause wouldn't be enforceable, the tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment.
They are not mutually exclusive
Unfortunately the previous responder was correct, the tenant can indeed refuse entry without reason.
I guess the best options are
You cannot do anything if the tenants say no.
Yes, they can refuse. But doing so is breach of contract and makes them liable for the damages in doing so. In such a case damages would be, for example, the increased mortgage costs until you evict them and get it remortgaged.
I thought the legal guidance was that the right to enjoyment means that legally you need to provide notice AND have the tenants permission.
A contact can't trump the law, and so there can't be damages because that aspect of the contract wasn't contractable.
You need to provide notice and get permission, if the permission is unresonably declined then the terms could have been breached. The fact that the valuation didnt take place is proof in itself that the landlord respected the obligation to get permision. It was declined, which is their choice but that choice breaches terms and action can be taken.
To enter, yes. If your notice is reasonable and there is a lease term that allows the purpose of the visit, then the tenant denying it is simple breach of contract. You say a contract can't trump the law. Please cite the statute that quiet enjoyment stems from. You won't find it. It comes from the common law. Same as breach of contract. So why is one higher than the other? It isn't. They're constructed together.
And you do win damages for it. I've won them in OP's specific case.
The right to quiet enjoyment is one the courts are pretty solid on and trying to claim for damages would be interesting to watch. Especially (in this case) there's no guarantee a mortgage would be granted with a different product/company so trying to demonstrate that you incurred additional costs incurred.
I did note asking tenants then offering a potential sweetener, we don't have enough context as to why they may or may not be rejected e.g. how is the relation.
Have you got a link to any case law/examples of this happening, I'd be genuinely interested and may let the OP know factual examples of what has happened in the past.
u/Major_Basil5117 and u/kojak488 are correct. You can not force a tenant to give access as they have the right of quiet enjoyment, but that does not negate a breach of contract that allows the landlord to use Section 8.
The landlord ultimately not being able to gain access by the time of the hearing is evident that quiet enjoyment wasn't breached. The court would then look at the breach of contract.
One does not negate the other. Plus, if we are talking 'quiet enjoyment', the president also has an obligation to act in a “tenant-like manner." That would include regular inspections.
At the moment, all that is typically necessary as you would just use Section 21.
The courts are clear that quiet enjoyment is not absolute nor does it supercede other contractual terms. They must all be ready together. If I were at my PC I'd go through my post history to show you the plethora of cases of cited on this topic. If you're genuinely interested you can just go back a bit in my history and search for quiet enjoyment.
I've also successfully sued for this exact scenario and won. But what do I know, eh?
This is nonsense.