Landlords agent let themselves in

JustMe,K

This is the second weekend in a row I have had no hot water in my (professionally managed) apartment. The LL sent someone to look at it and fix it last week, which lasted about 30 hours, and then we have no hot water again. Logged this with my LL, called them this morning, they said they would send someone round. No problem with that until they asked could the plumber let themselves in and I told them my [teenage] daughter was at home sleeping so no, they could not. They were to call me when they were on the way so I could ring her to wake her up.

This is where the problem lies - the plumber did not call me, he let himself in. My daughter was woken up to the sound of the door locking when he was done. I have spoken to the LL and complained about the plumber letting himself in, I was asked to put it in writing but I wonder does anyone know where we stand with this one? And no, the hot water still is not fixed.

skallywag

To the best of my knowledge, the LL cannot enter the property without your prior permission unless there is some class of emergency situation in play, such as a fire, etc.

The LL is completely in the wrong here in my opinion.

On the other hand, if it had been me, I would have simply given the permission to enter, and called my daughter to let her know that someone would be coming round.

You either want it fixed or not. Why didn't you just call her earlier in the day when you knew he would be calling. A busy plumber has better things for doing than pussy footing around an overly picky tenant.

Anytime I needed a tradesman was needed in any house I rented the LL would let me know roughly when he would come and I'd leave a key under the matt every morning going to work from him to get in until the work was done, never got this desire people have to put themselves out over getting a bit of work done rather than just let the LL get on with it and have it fixed.

JustMe,K

skallywag wrote: »

On the other hand, if it had been me, I would have simply given the permission to enter, and called my daughter to let her know that someone would be coming round.

There would have been no need for the plumber to let himself in if they had called me as planned so that I could call her to wake her and let her know to expect him, as the LL hadn't even confirmed that someone would be coming today, never mind if it was to be morning or afternoon.

JustMe,K

Danica Uninterested Burglar wrote: »

You either want it fixed or not. Why didn't you just call her earlier in the day when you knew he would be calling. A busy plumber has better things for doing than pussy footing around an overly picky tenant.

Anytime I needed a tradesman was needed in any house I rented the LL would let me know roughly when he would come and I'd leave a key under the matt every morning going to work from him to get in until the work was done, never got this desire people have to put themselves out over getting a bit of work done rather than just let the LL get on with it and have it fixed.

Overly picky? I think not - there was no indication from the LL that he would be there today. Ordinarily, if there was no one home of course I would give permission to let themselves in - but when expressly asked could they let themselves in, expressly saying no (and explaining why), and the LL saying that I would get a call first, I cant see how thats pussy footing around anything.

Graces7

kcdiom wrote: »

Overly picky? I think not - there was no indication from the LL that he would be there today. Ordinarily, if there was no one home of course I would give permission to let themselves in - but when expressly asked could they let themselves in, expressly saying no (and explaining why), and the LL saying that I would get a call first, I cant see how thats pussy footing around anything.

agree totally and so do tenancy rules. they were told why.

GarIT

Complain to the RTB and contact your solicitor, €10,000 payouts have been made in similar circumstances.

Whether someone wants to call you picky or not what the plumber did was illegal.

amdublin

Yeah a bit of a breakdown in conversation but **** happens. What's the difference really? Either your daughter let's them in or they let themselves in. The job had to be done at the end of the day right.

Zulu

kcdiom wrote: »

...and the LL saying that I would get a call first, I cant see how thats pussy footing around anything.

Perhaps the plumber forgot/didnt mention to the LL when he was going to attend?


TBF you've made this whole thing a bit more awkard and complex than it need to to be - you could have rang your teenage daughter in the first instance and advised her of the same without creating this conditional scenario.


Eitherway, it's now done. What are you hoping for next? If the landlord is in the wrong (which it sounds like they are), what do you want? An apology? Compensation? And all-out fight through the RTB?


Life is fairly fleeting, I'd suggest getting on with it.

BoneIdol

It's bad enough trying to get a tradesman to come when you're organising it yourself. When it's going through a third party it's a nightmare. I'd be inclined to let it go.

AtomicHorror

A lot of downplaying comments here... I wonder how many would be happy to wake up realizing a stranger has just entered their home?

It's a clear breach of the landlord's obligations, and the presence of a minor makes it a bit more serious. However, as it's only a single instance, it's hard to see much coming of it if you do decide to escalate.

I would put it in writing, to ensure there's a record for future reference, and to make your expectations clear to your landlord.

After that, I would only escalate to PRTB if there's a recurrence. They'll likely only take action on evidence of a pattern of breaches.

JustMe,K

TBH I am not looking for a payout or anything like it. I'd like the LL to actually fix the issue, and have the peace of mind that there are not going to be people coming and going in my home without my consent. And yes, an apology and acknowledgement that it shouldn't have happened wouldn't go amiss. What is the point in even asking if they can let themselves in if they pay no attention to it?

My daughter was working last night, which is the whole reason she was sleeping today, and I could not have rang her to let her know the plumber was coming as I was not given that information.

JustMe,K

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A lot of downplaying comments here... I wonder how many would be happy to wake up realizing a stranger has just entered their home?

It's a clear breach of the landlord's obligations, and the presence of a minor makes it a bit more serious. However, as it's only a single instance, it's hard to see much coming of it if you do decide to escalate.

I would put it in writing, to ensure there's a record for future reference, and to make your expectations clear to your landlord.

After that, I would only escalate to PRTB if there's a recurrence. They'll likely only take action on evidence of a pattern of breaches.

Probably the best idea - thanks. If it wasnt a pesky inservice day in school she would have been there instead of working last night anyway!

spaceHopper

You are being picky, the LL was being piggie in the middle, he'd to arrange for the plumber, then arrange for you to wake your daughter..... Next time either wake your daughter, be their yourself or ask for the plumbers number so that you can arrange it with them.

Ethereal Cereal

The replies to this thread are shocking. A tradesman illegally entered OP's apartment where his daughter was sleeping. This breaches terms of privacy, advance notice, and I'm assuming several other clauses on the lease.

You have rights OP, this was completely out of line, you should absolutely complain to the RTB, see where it goes from there.

I'm assuming the plumber was told by the landlord to let himself in, and that no one was home, otherwise he would have knocked. I'm sure he did not want to be put in this situation either.

JustMe,K

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

The replies to this thread are shocking. A tradesman illegally entered OP's apartment where his daughter was sleeping. This breaches terms of privacy, advance notice, and I'm assuming several other clauses on the lease.

You have rights OP, this was completely out of line, you should absolutely complain to the RTB, see where it goes from there.

I'm assuming the plumber was told by the landlord to let himself in, and that no one was home, otherwise he would have knocked. I'm sure he did not want to be put in this situation either.

Well this is the point - plumber is on staff so I would imagine being told no you cant just let yourself in is more unusual than just using master keys, which should have stood out. Obviously I want the water fixed so if she hadnt been there, there would have been no issue. I'm not even going down the road that if it had been properly fixed last week none of this would be an issue today.

Graham

Mod Note

Some of the responses here are way below an acceptable standard for A & P.

Any more 'after hours' style responses will result in a card.

hawkelady

GarIT wrote: »

Complain to the RTB and contact your solicitor, €10,000 payouts have been made in similar circumstances.

Whether someone wants to call you picky or not what the plumber did was illegal.

And here we have it folks !!!! This utter tripe is what raises blood pressure in normal thinking people .
After reading it again I really hope it was typed with tongue in cheek , otherwise I know where I’d like to shove his tongue ..

Op.... get on with your life , ll was the middle man , in future get the tradesman number and arrange details with him directly

JustMe,K

spaceHopper wrote: »

You are being picky, the LL was being piggie in the middle, he'd to arrange for the plumber, then arrange for you to wake your daughter..... Next time either wake your daughter, be their yourself or ask for the plumbers number so that you can arrange it with them.

I did ask for their contact details, to be assured they would contact me. LL is not really piggy in the middle, they have a bank of maintenance staff that they allocate the jobs to.

Ray Palmer

The landlord could have easily passed on the instruction and the plumber ignored/forgotten. The issue is with plumber not the landlord if that is the case. What do you want the landlord do to him? Best he can do is not hire them again.
If you ever have to deal with tradesmen you know you should be grateful he turned up at all.Trying to organise a plumber to suit a 3rd party while getting them to turn up is unreasonable given the nature of tradesmen.

Wheres Me Jumper?

yes it is ILLEGAL for a LL to allow himself or anybody else to enter the property without tenant's prior permission. (unless the property or other residents are in imminent danger!)

what i usually do is to contact the tradesman and then ask him to make contact with the tenant, to arrange access etc.
that way the tenant can better explain exactly what the issue is.
i also make it clear to the tradesman that i will be paying, so he clears any work with me first before proceeding.

i find this works very well. no problems.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The landlord could have easily passed on the instruction and the plumber ignored/forgotten. The issue is with plumber not the landlord if that is the case. What do you want the landlord do to him? Best he can do is not hire them again.
If you ever have to deal with tradesmen you know you should be grateful he turned up at all.Trying to organise a plumber to suit a 3rd party while getting them to turn up is unreasonable given the nature of tradesmen.

still an ILLEGAL breach of tenancy agreement. no excuses.

Graces7

amdublin wrote: »

Yeah a bit of a breakdown in conversation but **** happens. What's the difference really? Either your daughter let's them in or they let themselves in. The job had to be done at the end of the day right.

If you were woken suddenly realising someone was in the house>?

NB as a safeguard I always snib/bolt the door from the inside when I am in.

unreg999

I am absolutely shocked by the (typical) responses to this thread, it is 100% NOT ok for anyone to let themselves into your home without your prior consent let alone with your teenage daughter asleep there!
Bad enough if she had been awake and aware of it but even worse that she was asleep and had no idea what was going on.
This is the stuff of nightmares for most women, not feeling safe in your own home.

I don't care for the responses that some people have 'you were lucky to get someone to come and do the work at all' so basically just suck it up!

Something similar happened to me, I had some ongoing work that needed to be done in a house I had just moved into, my landlady's Father called over to have a look at the dishwasher or something and just let himself in... my 14 year old daughter was home alone and it scared the crap out of her... his response was that he hadn't seen my car outside so thought I wasn't home!

He was gone by the time I got home but I told my Landlady in no uncertain terms that it could never happen again!

Ray Palmer

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

still an ILLEGAL breach of tenancy agreement. no excuses.

The plumber did have permission to enter the property just was meant to follow instructions. Any reasonable person knows the score and you would be so unlikely to win a case. Mountain over a molehill and all you can expect is an apology and nothing more.

Sleeper12

I am that plumber or a plumber. I don't ring when on the way. I give you a two or three hour window as to when I will be there. You will either be there or you won't.

The homeowner or tenant doesn't get to dictate when I might or might not be there. You are either there or not. If you are not there then you don't get the job done.
I'm not really sure what you might think the EA did wrong. Many companies give you an am/pm appointment. Some don't even narrow it down that much.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The plumber did have permission to enter the property just was meant to follow instructions. Any reasonable person knows the score and you would be so unlikely to win a case. Mountain over a molehill and all you can expect is an apology and nothing more.

the workman may have had (or thought he had) permission from the EA/LL, but if the tenant did NOT give her permission it counts for nothing.
it's effectively illegal entry.

Ray Palmer

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

the workman may have had (or thought he had) permission from the EA/LL, but if the tenant did NOT give her permission it counts for nothing.
it's effectively illegal entry.

What do you want to happen now?

Pelvis

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The plumber did have permission to enter the property

No, he didn't.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What do you want to happen now?

i dont want anything "to happen", but going forward the LL/EA should first obtain the tenant's permission before he lets himself or anyone else into what is effectively someone else's property.

Pelvis

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I am that plumber or a plumber. I don't ring when on the way. I give you a two or three hour window as to when I will be there. You will either be there or you won't.

The homeowner or tenant doesn't get to dictate when I might or might not be there. You are either there or not. If you are not there then you don't get the job done.
I'm not really sure what you might think the EA did wrong. Many companies give you an am/pm appointment. Some don't even narrow it down that much.

The op wasn't told the plumber was coming at all.

No one is saying he should be able to dictate when the plumber should arrive, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

riemann

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I am that plumber or a plumber. I don't ring when on the way. I give you a two or three hour window as to when I will be there. You will either be there or you won't.

The homeowner or tenant doesn't get to dictate when I might or might not be there. You are either there or not. If you are not there then you don't get the job done.
I'm not really sure what you might think the EA did wrong. Many companies give you an am/pm appointment. Some don't even narrow it down that much.

Sounds extremely unprofessional. Common courtesy is to call when leaving previous job to give a more accurate time window.

Visconti

kcdiom wrote: »

This is the second weekend in a row I have had no hot water in my (professionally managed) apartment. The LL sent someone to look at it and fix it last week, which lasted about 30 hours, and then we have no hot water again. Logged this with my LL, called them this morning, they said they would send someone round. No problem with that until they asked could the plumber let themselves in and I told them my [teenage] daughter was at home sleeping so no, they could not. They were to call me when they were on the way so I could ring her to wake her up.

This is where the problem lies - the plumber did not call me, he let himself in. My daughter was woken up to the sound of the door locking when he was done. I have spoken to the LL and complained about the plumber letting himself in, I was asked to put it in writing but I wonder does anyone know where we stand with this one? And no, the hot water still is not fixed.

Did the plumber not ring the bell ? Its unacceptable. Contact should have been made, especially with a male plumber arriving with a teenage girl on her own.

Ray Palmer

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i dont want anything "to happen", but going forward the LL/EA should first obtain the tenant's permission before he lets himself or anyone else into what is effectively someone else's property.

It is not and never will be the tenant's property, it may be their home but they don't own it.

So in the end all he will get is an apology and a promise to not do it again. That is basically what I said. Way overblown outrage.

Graham

Mod Note

Off Topic Posts Deleted

dubrov

The landlord bias on this forum is there for all to see in this thread (and many others).
It is a clear breach of tenancy rules.

It probably wasn't the plumbers fault as the landlord probably told him to go ahead.

I'd definitely get something in writing and make sure the landlord knows that this will not be tolerated again.
No one, even the landlord, should be letting themselves in uninvited.

Give them the benefit of the doubt this time but I wouldn't let a second time go if it reoccurs.

Marcusm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is not and never will be the tenant's property, it may be their home but they don't own it.

So in the end all he will get is an apology and a promise to not do it again. That is basically what I said. Way overblown outrage.

I know that you let properties; in law, the landlord grants possession of the property to the tenant and is bound by a covenant of quiet enjoyment which precludes the landlord, his servants or agents from entering the property without thectenant’s permission other than in exigent circumstances (e.g. a suspected fire). The plumber should have rung the door bell or knocked loudly irrespective of whether he had (invalid) permission.

Sleeper12

riemann wrote: »

Sounds extremely unprofessional. Common courtesy is to call when leaving previous job to give a more accurate time window.

Why would I call when you are supposed to be there?


What happens if we agree to phone is we get" Right, yeah, ok I'll just nip out to get some milk now. Or OH I have time to walk the dog"


I'm doing this long before anyone had mobile phones. People waited in back then. Once we started phoning ahead we found people wern't there. We'd ring again from outside the house & get "yeah, I just nipped out back in 2 minutes". 2 minutes can stretch to 20 minutes.


We give the homeowner a 2 hour or so window. If they are not there when we arrive we don't ring, we go on to our next job. they just lost out. We don't have time to baby sit customers nor is it my job to wake someone's teenager at midday to get them to open the door. We are too busy for any of that carry on.

Pelvis

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm doing this long before anyone had mobile phones. People waited in back then. Once we started phoning ahead we found people wern't there. We'd ring again from outside the house & get "yeah, I just nipped out back in 2 minutes". 2 minutes can stretch to 20 minutes.

Newsflash, this stuff didn't magically start happening the day you started ringing ahead. It happened before and it happens now. You just don't know about it, because you don't ring ahead.

If you ring ahead, you might save yourself a journey, knowing the homeowner isn't there. I'd have thought that would improve efficiency for someone like yourself, who apparently is too busy to make a phone call, or send a simple text.

Sleeper12

Pelvis wrote: »

Newsflash, this stuff didn't magically start happening the day you started ringing ahead. It happened before and it happens now. You just don't know about it, because you don't ring ahead.

If you ring ahead, you might save yourself a journey, knowing the homeowner isn't there. I'd have thought that would improve efficiency for someone like yourself, who apparently is too busy to make a phone call, or send a simple text.

You misread my post. By giving a two hour window ( 20 years ago it was an AM or PM appointment) we have better success of actually getting someone there in the house. We discovered by ringing ahead people the decided that "Oh I have enough time to nip out for this & that" & we'd get there & they won't be home.


We have a far better success rate just giving a 2 hour window with no pre call.

JohnCleary

Next weeks thread: "LL promised plumber would call to fix an issue, no sign of them".

I can tell you right now that if the LL mentions to the plumber you're creating, you won't see him again any time soon.

cruizer101

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We give the homeowner a 2 hour or so window. If they are not there when we arrive we don't ring, we go on to our next job. they just lost out. We don't have time to baby sit customers nor is it my job to wake someone's teenager at midday to get them to open the door. We are too busy for any of that carry on.

Thats not what the OP is talking about though

Firstly they weren't told whether the plumber was coming or not. No AM/PM, no time slot, just not told if they were coming or not.

Secondly the plumber just let themselves in, it wasn't that because no one was there the job didn't get done, they let themselves in without even ringing the bell or knocking.

Its a different situation to what you are talking about.
Personally I think you would be better ringing ahead but whatever works for you however its not the same situation as the OPs.

Sleeper12

cruizer101 wrote: »

Thats not what the OP is talking about though

Firstly they weren't told whether the plumber was coming or not. No AM/PM, no time slot, just not told if they were coming or not.

Secondly the plumber just let themselves in, it wasn't that because no one was there the job didn't get done, they let themselves in without even ringing the bell or knocking.

Its a different situation to what you are talking about.
Personally I think you would be better ringing ahead but whatever works for you however its not the same situation as the OPs.

Read the OP. They were told that the plumber was coming. Op wanted plumber to phone first. It's not plumbers job to phone a third party.



As answered before Landlord can't let himself in however OP did give permission to enter. She didn't get a phone call first but she DID give permission for him to enter.


I've had similar before, trying to ring but not getting through. No coverage, getting message minder. Here's one for you sometimes you can ring a number only to be told that the number can't be reached. The number might work perfectly for everyone else but even texts from your phone aren't delivered.



The bottom line is OP gave permission according to the opening post.

Pelvis

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Read the OP.

Read the thread.

kcdiom wrote: »

There would have been no need for the plumber to let himself in if they had called me as planned so that I could call her to wake her and let her know to expect him, as the LL hadn't even confirmed that someone would be coming today, never mind if it was to be morning or afternoon.

...

Sleeper12 wrote: »

As answered before Landlord can't let himself in however OP did give permission to enter. She didn't get a phone call first but she DID give permission for him to enter.

I've had similar before, trying to ring but not getting through. No coverage, getting message minder. Here's one for you sometimes you can ring a number only to be told that the number can't be reached. The number might work perfectly for everyone else but even texts from your phone aren't delivered.


The bottom line is OP gave permission according to the opening post.

Again, no he didn't.

kcdiom wrote: »

This is the second weekend in a row I have had no hot water in my (professionally managed) apartment. The LL sent someone to look at it and fix it last week, which lasted about 30 hours, and then we have no hot water again. Logged this with my LL, called them this morning, they said they would send someone round. No problem with that until they asked could the plumber let themselves in and I told them my [teenage] daughter was at home sleeping so no, they could not. They were to call me when they were on the way so I could ring her to wake her up.

Sleeper12

Pelvis wrote: »

Read the thread.



...




Again, no he didn't.

There were serious wires crossed. I only have keys with me if I am to let myself in. Why did plumber have keys if he wasn't to let himself in?
EDIT: Forgot to say I was wrong. I read that he did have permission

cruizer101

Sleeper12 wrote:

Read the OP. They were told that the plumber was coming

Fair enough from the first post it isn't clear but they later said

kcdiom wrote: »

, as the LL hadn't even confirmed that someone would be coming today, never mind if it was to be morning or afternoon.

And

kcdiom wrote: »

Overly picky? I think not - there was no indication from the LL that he would be there today.

Sleeper12 wrote:

Op wanted plumber to phone first. It's not plumbers job to phone a third party.

I disagree, the plumber is being employed by the landlord if they get specific instructions to ring before then they should. We don't know did they get those instructions mind.

Sleeper12 wrote:

however OP did give permission to enter

kcdiom wrote: »

Overly picky?Ordinarily, if there was no one home of course I would give permission to let themselves in - but when expressly asked could they let themselves in, expressly saying no

From this post they didn't, so I don't think it is clear either way

Edit to add: I see you just corrected in last post on permission

Re the keys my reading of it is the landlord owns a lot of the apartments and the plumber might have a master key or something along those lines so wasn't necessarily given those specific keys rather just always has a copy but I might be reading that wrong

Sleeper12

cruizer101 wrote: »

Fair enough from the first post it isn't clear but they later said

And






I disagree, the plumber is being employed by the landlord if they get specific instructions to ring before then they should. We don't know did they get those instructions mind.





From this post they didn't, so I don't think it is clear either way

In bold you are totally wrong. It's not a plumbers job to phone anyone. Thats up to landlord.



Why did plumber have keys? He would only have keys if he was told to let himself in

dr.fuzzenstein

GarIT wrote: »

Complain to the RTB and contact your solicitor, €10,000 payouts have been made in similar circumstances.

Whether someone wants to call you picky or not what the plumber did was illegal.

And forget about having anything ever fixed again without a three month waiting list, a written, witnessed agreement and solitictor present that would make sure everything was correct and above board.

tom1ie

dubrov wrote: »

The landlord bias on this forum is there for all to see in this thread (and many others).
It is a clear breach of tenancy rules.

It probably wasn't the plumbers fault as the landlord probably told him to go ahead.

I'd definitely get something in writing and make sure the landlord knows that this will not be tolerated again.
No one, even the landlord, should be letting themselves in uninvited.

Give them the benefit of the doubt this time but I wouldn't let a second time go if it reoccurs.

Pure speculation.
How do you know the LL didn’t specifically say “don’t enter that property unless you get the tenants express permission” and the plumber just ignored the LL, the plumbers phone was on the blink, the plumber didn’t have phone coverage, the plumber rang the bell and no one answered as the daughter was asleep and didn’t hear the bell.
It’s amazing how quick people are to blame the LL without knowing all the facts.

Sleeper12

tom1ie wrote:

Pure speculation. How do you know the LL didn’t specifically say “don’t enter that property unless you get the tenants express permission†and the plumber just ignored the LL, the plumbers phone was on the blink, the plumber didn’t have phone coverage, the plumber rang the bell and no one answered as the daughter was asleep and didn’t hear the bell. It’s amazing how quick people are to blame the LL without knowing all the facts.

I wouldn't have taken this job. Not in a million years. Its far too messy.

Plumber had keys. There is only one reason why he'd have keys.

I assume that the child was ill because simplist solution would have been waking the teenager at 9am so they would have been awake to ler the plumber in

Plumber ringing landlord who is rings tenant who rings teenager is a ridiculous setup. I wouldn't touch it at all.

Ray Palmer

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

how can you say that? i know dozens of tenants who now own the properties they once rented. so that's utter tosh.
and even if they do not purchase it, they are still entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of the property, and to receive "adequate notice" if the LL or his agents wishes to access the property. i have tenants, but i would never dream of entering their home without prior consent.

to listen to the tone of some posters on here, you would be forgiven for thinking we were still back in the 1870s

You claimed the tenant owned the property while renting. You were wrong and know it but now want to go on about the fact tenants can buy the property. They aren't tenants then but you want to be outraged so fire away.

The tone of outrage on the thread is so riddiculious. I read it as consent as they agreed for the plumber to call that day. The plumber failed to do as asked but we don't know if he was given the instruction or why he didn't follow them at all. It happened there really is nothing that can be done other than an apology and a promise not to do it again. Done nothing more to it.

Plumbers are on saying why they do things the way they do them and special terms of how to contact people for entry are often ignored. That is the world and you can't "should" the world around. I think it is all childish and unreasonable. Personally I hire a plumber and give them the tenants number to arrange the best time . Still get tenants fuming that they didnt turn up abd blaming me. What can I do about tradesmen not turning up when they said they would? Best is hire another one who very may well do the same. Tenants have insisted on being there and lost days of work and tradesmen didn't turn up. Asked me to compensate them for lost wages. Never did nor will, it is the nature of the beast.