You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Ask the University's Designated Safeguarding Lead for their policy on unconsensual room searches and entry.
And the DSL's view of male only staff forcing an entry to a female students residence.
So after a couple of pages, the OP who was looking for a second opinion and a bit of perspective has found out that he is a fibber and a bad parent. Classic STW.
I'm sorry if I've questioned parenting skills if that's aimed at me. I thought the OP and I had a fair conversation about why I'm in favour of letting her sort it out and he is more inclined to sort it himself. I think the only person accused of bad parenting was me, and since I levelled the accusation I think I'm entitled to self reflection.
Man asks question, people give opinions that are different, some people get the hump when their opinion isn't universally agreed. Classic STW.
And I still think the first response on the thread of threatening legal action is over the top.
I'm just hoping it keeps going long enough for me to post graduation photos.
Thanks for all the abuse advice. 🙂
This could run through first degree, masters and PhD!
I find it quite endearing that when reading of a lone female having her privacy invaded (regardless of how long ago an email was sent) there are still good men out there fighting the good fight and jumping straight to character assassination without let or hinder.
Doing us proud brothers, doing us proud.
*slow clap*
squirrel - your post is pointless and stupid.
Discussion would be the same if thread had been about male student; same concerns, same principles, same parental concern.
Would it?
Regardless. The notion that they forced entry due to welfare concerns is bullshit. It's not hard to unscrew a security chain but it takes time, if the safety of the resident was in question then a carefully placed size 8 would bypass the chain way quicker than a screwdriver.
Yes, it would.
Personally, I don't they should have entered without a female staffer present.
If anything is to change in the team's oprrations, it's that point. They know very well who is in each room.
Suicide is a problem. The universities are trying to finding ways of preventing it happening within their student bodies. If notices went out, and a student had headphones blaring loudly, then this situation is within bounds to a point (male only staff being my issue)
Who would I have words with? (not a complaint as such, but a "learning exoerience") The university staff themselves. In a reasonable and fairly calm manner. I would not trust the jocks and cheerleaders earning 20k+ on the Student Union external charitably based organizations to do the right/competent thing where individual welfare is concerned.
Reasonable conversations can lead to greater ties in future with staff which is more beneficial than being that student who is "hot to handle".
If she had topped herself then breaking in wouldn't have achieved anything anyway. Might as well wait for reports of missing person, or smell. If my neighbour didn't answer the door I wouldn't immediately smash my way in to see if they'd just had a stroke or a fall even though that's far far more likely than anything happening to the young lady in this thread.
unfortunatly student halls are exempt from most law around tenancies so don’t throw around tenancies laws as they probably do not apply
Hmm. IANAL, but I'd really like to see this confirmed. I would imagine the Human Rights Act of 1998 Right to privacy) would trump any 'rules' set by the landlord. I'm sure they do have a right to inspect the property having given reasonable notice, but I really don't think they can just enter a room without the tenant's consent. If it's an emergency or 'safety' issue, then surely they would have protocols in place that would involve informing emergency services. Dismantling a lock may well constitute breaking and entering, but again; IANAL. Sounds like a very bad breach of procedure and protocol, to me. That is happened to another female student as well, has to raise concerns. Surely the reasonable course of action would have been to knock loudly, raise enough noise, but then come back later/contact the student if they couldn't gain access? Just barging in doesn't sound like a reasonable course of action. As others have suggested, it could just be that they couldn't be arsed waiting for lazy students to wake up, so just wanted to get the job done and not have to come back.
I’d be threatening with legal action….
What would you be coming at them with? Unless you are very familiar with the relevant section of law, going in with that approach from the off, is very likely to be a waste of time, embarrassing, and could well lead to the student being evicted on some other technicality. Then you've got to find other accommodation, early into a new academic year. The best approach is to lodge a formal complaint with the relevant authorities, and if you really want to, get legal advice on your rights as a tenant.
It's a horrible situation that should not have happened. That a young woman was frightened, is unacceptable. That it happened more than once, is even worse. Nobody should be put in a situation where they are fearful for their own safety, in what is effectively their own 'home'.
If she had topped herself then breaking in wouldn’t have achieved anything anyway.
If she'd tried topping herself but was still alive it could have helped. I've been in a similar situation, called by the students in a corridor because one of their friends wasn't answering her door or phone, and after calling the hall staff we ended up letting ourselves into her room and found she'd overdosed. We called 999, she was ambulanced out and lived to tell the tale. Without our intervention she'd probably have died.
Background: I was a "senior student" in halls. In exchange for 20% off accommodation fees, I was on a rota where I had to be on site and "on duty" one night a week, carrying out basic fire door and shared kitchen checks, but also available for welfare-related calls. I was given basic training on physical and mental first aid and had several pages of info on which numbers to call, which procedures to follow for welfare / health concerns and all the fire and safety requirements. Anybody whose job involves entering other people's bedrooms *should* have been given the rules on this because the uni will have a policy.
FWIW I think something doesn't add up here too:
1) If it's a routine inspection and the room is occupied with the chain on, come back another time (but make efforts to let the room occupant know you're there so they know who you are and can let you in if possible).
OR
2) If you're removing the chain and entering the room as a welfare concern issue, the main thing you are there for is to check the occupant's welfare. There'll be a protocol for this, follow it and log it. This is significantly more important than the routine inspection and any Uni's Safeguarding person will be the person to talk to about this.
...it doesn't make sense to claim they removed the chain out of welfare concern, but they didn't then check on the welfare of the student.
I think the relevant section of law might be this:
Would be worth getting advice on how this particular type of student accommodation falls under the definition of 'home'. My wife, who is a lawyer, is busy working atm, but I can try asking her later.
Suicide is a problem. The universities are trying to finding ways of preventing it happening within their student bodies. If notices went out, and a student had headphones blaring loudly, then this situation is within bounds to a point (male only staff being my issue)
Yes it is.
But. Did they have reasonable cause to suspect a potential issue in this case? If no then it's a moot argument. If yes then they shouldn't have been tossing about with screwdrivers when there were concerns for her life.
It's an outrageous situation and as much as it pains me to say it, 'configuration' is on the money here. I wonder what the apologists would be saying right now if the employees had barged in to find her with her boyfriend balls deep and a cucumber up her arse.
Yes it does sound like proceedure should be tighter.
Giving a fortnight window when they can just stroll in at any time (welfare aside, I'm just talking regular inspection/maintenence here), if they can force entry just to carry that out, there's no reason why they can't be more organised and roster it properly, and say 'we are comming between 9-5 on day X' and if you don't answer we will let ourselves in.
And if they were even more organised they could have a spreadsheet and offer to rebook the inspection for another day so as not to clash with important lectures etc, but with no other choice once you've already deferred once.
I can't imagine an inspection takes any more than 10 mins per student, so they could easily do whole blocks in a day.
EDIT. From what the OP said it doesn't appear there was anything nefarious going on, just the property management being disorganised and insensitive, and possibly incompetent. Presumably these jobs are contracted out to the lowest bidder and this is the kind of service you end up with.
Perhaps they'd be concerned about wasting perfectly good vegetables? Or perhaps that would actually be a 'sustainable' option; less plastics and that.
I wonder what the apologists would be saying right now if the employees had barged in to find her with her boyfriend balls deep and a cucumber up her arse.
Classy, on a thread started by her father. Other phrases are available
That's deliberately offensive cougar and wouldn't be excused by you saying you have asperger's.
Mrhutch would be fully justified in asking the mods to have a word with you.
I wonder what the apologists would be saying right now if the employees had barged in to find her with her boyfriend balls deep and a cucumber up her arse.
Apart from the terrible imagery, this does raise a question which hasn't been adequately answered - were they actually employees carrying out an inspection?
The very first post says this: Was asleep, undressed, in bed in her halls room, with earplugs in, the door locked and chain attached. Two male hall staff basically broke in – unlocked it and unscrewed the chain from outside – and barged in to ‘inspect’ the room. but in a later post we find out that the girl had frozen and not interacted with the 'employees' at all and couldn't hear anything loud, like someone breaking into her room. How did she know that they were carrying out an inspection? They may have been students carrying out a prank, or, even worse, people actually breaking in to burgle or worse.
I've got a first year uni student offspring myself. I'm getting a very filtered account of what her friends are up to. But, it must have been very frightening for the OP's daughter.
+1. What a crappy example to use. Why did you have to degrade it to that level?
I think to summarise, it's a grey area but at a policy level if there is a genuine concern for welfare then Unis have a duty of care to act. However procedurally things have gone wrong / not been followed, and someone (possibly parent, possibly student, YMMV) should be taking it up with the appropriate people at the Uni (or if it's a private hall provider, the management company) and then taking it from there.
Those declaring it's a criminal act and call the police / threaten legal action, or a gross disregard for human rights are IMHO well ahead of themselves. Some maintenance guy has screwed up, and needs some advice / retraining from their management, and an apology to the students involved.
this does raise a question which hasn’t been adequately answered – were they actually employees carrying out an inspection?
Well, apart from the fact that OP said they'd been advised of forthcoming inspections, and then on complaining to the management was told they were worried it was a welfare issue (maybe BS) but certainly hasn't been told 'what inspections? No-one's done inspections on that block this week?' - I'm thinking it's a fairly reasonable suggestion they were.
But to take it to the ECHR, then yes, you'd probably need a higher level of proof than I can currently give.
I am a part time residential landlord with 20 or so years experience and if I did this to a tenant I'd be expecting a custodial sentence.
I am not sure what the "tenancy" status is in student halls but you may need to consider that as well. I'd be seeking proper legal advice pronto.
And make a police report.
Well, apart from the fact that OP said they’d been advised of forthcoming inspections, and then on complaining to the management was told they were worried it was a welfare issue (maybe BS) but certainly hasn’t been told ‘what inspections? No-one’s done inspections on that block this week?’ – I’m thinking it’s a fairly reasonable suggestion they were.
Ah, I've just found the post that I'd missed - top of page 2.
Are you as sarcastic in real life as you come across on this thread? 😀
EDIT. From what the OP said it doesn’t appear there was anything nefarious going on, just the property management being disorganised and insensitive, and possibly incompetent. Presumably these jobs are contracted out to the lowest bidder and this is the kind of service you end up with.
If the maintenance is outsourced that is even more of a concern because they are essentially "outsiders" and whether those contractors/employees have their had criminal record checked? If they are contractors then a University staff must accompany them at all times.
+1. What a crappy example to use. Why did you have to degrade it to that level?
Because it's a viable scenario and one that people are pussyfooting around.
I said this earlier. TWO MEN BROKE INTO A YOUNG WOMAN'S HOME without her consent. Fin, end of argument, next question. She was in bed. Undressed to an undisclosed degree. She could have been doing anything, in any state. She might have been in the shower. She might have been doing coursework. She might have been shagging. She might have been watching telly. But she has every right to do all of those things undisturbed without fear of someone bypassing her locks and strolling on in. Why the hell are you all making excuses for this, or telling the OP to wind his neck in because she needs to Adult?
Did I shock you? Good, be ****ing shocked then. I bet you're not as shocked as she was. If it happened to me I'd be moving out, and I'm not a teenaged woman. How does she sleep at night now?
FFS.
if there is a genuine concern for welfare then Unis have a duty of care to act.
Yep.
"If."
Was there?
Some maintenance guy has screwed up, and needs some advice / retraining from their management, and an apology to the students involved.
Oh, well, that's OK then. I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the affected students. "You're alright love, they're really sorry and they totally weren't rapists this time so no harm done eh?"
C'mon Jon, you're usually a voice of reason. This is bloody ridiculous.
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order, no matter how many notices they give.
I think theres a lot of over-reaction in this thread, personally.
I don't know the laws in halls, but if they are more like a hotel room than a regular tennancy, you get cleaners coming in every day to change the bedding. Unless you put a do not disturb sign on the door, they just knock once or twice and then come in...
...but then I'd imagine that would only defer it for 24hrs max, after that you'd have the hotel management ringing you or more likley, just knocking loudly and entering anyway.
Devils advocate again (I'm honestly trying to be objective here) they do have to ensure everything is in order, and Students can be students and ignore/embelish events.
I'm guessing if you want the extra privacy you'd have to lease a flat/house on a regular tennancy, with the extra costs and obligations that entails.
I'm by no means saying the property management acted as tactfully or thoughfully as they could, they probably have some lessons to learn from this kind of scenario.
Let me reframe this.
Earlier this year, we booked a house for a group holiday. There's maybe 20 of us and it's a booking we've made annually for several years now.
One day, the housekeeper strolled in. The first we knew was when she was stood in the kitchen kicking off that we'd used the wrong oven or something.
Discussions were had. Most of us considered this an invasion of privacy. No foul in the grand scheme of things, but she shouldn't have just walked in unannounced into a property we were paying for. The owners agreed with us that it was out of order. Any potential issues (which they had zero reason to suspect after we'd been leaving the place cleaner than we'd found it since like 2007) should be evaluated at the end of the booking, not midway.
And we weren't a woman on her own and the housekeeper wasn't two blokes unscrewing the locks to get in.
I don’t know the laws in halls, but if they are more like a hotel room than a regular tennancy, you get cleaners coming in every day to change the bedding. Unless you put a do not disturb sign on the door, they just knock once or twice and then come in…
How would you feel if you'd booked a hotel, the cleaners couldn't gain access to change the bedding so they unscrewed the security chain whilst you were still in bed?
squirrel – your post is pointless and stupid.
Discussion would be the same if thread had been about male student; same concerns, same principles, same parental concern.
Pointless and stupid?
Are you suggesting that the posters attempting to cast doubt on the female in question are correct?
And I'm sorry but no. Two men breaking into a lone females room is not in any way comparable if the gender roles were reversed. If we want to talk stupid then you've hit the jackpot there.
Snowflakes!
I
B
T
L
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order, no matter how many notices they give.
Ermmm - are you certain on that? A landlord does have a right of entry but particular conditions must be met. ( according to every tenancy contract I have used and the ones I use are taken directly off the government websites) and as above halls of residence do not fall under tenancy law - they are hotel contracts.
Normal tenant / landlord as in private tenancies does not apply to student halls. The contracts signed are not normal tenancies
Your housing status in halls of residence or other university accommodation
If you live in accommodation that is provided by an educational institution such as a university, you will be an occupier with basic protection. This is a term used in housing which helps to identify your housing rights.
An occupier with basic protection has limited rights and as long as your landlord follows the correct legal process you can be evicted quite easily.
How would you feel if you’d booked a hotel, the cleaners couldn’t gain access to change the bedding so they unscrewed the security chain whilst you were still in bed?
Well they generally won't if theres a 'do not disturb' notice on the door...they will just come back the next day and then probably enter anyway as they have a job to do, and the owner of the hotel most likey has an interest and obligation to ensure things are in order.
But thinking about it, that's a terrible ananolgy as we are not taking about private tennacy or hotel rooms. I'm guessing the rules on halls are somewhere inbetween...
And I can Imagine dealing with students, day in, day out, they have seen some sights and can't be arsed with any BS.
Slight hijack.
I wonder what the reaction would be if a fit female clearer saw my my morning glory when she entered my room while I was having some pleasant dreams (beginning to imagine the 80s blue film). Would I be accused? LOL!
Anyway, back to OP's topic.
was there a concern for welfare?
That's what the OP said the response was when he checked with management. He also said he didn't believe it, but none of us including the OP were there so unless we can read the mind of someone we've never met, I suspect that will be unprovable. But as I said, there should be a clear procedure in such a case that removes the ambiguity. As I think I reasonably said:
At a policy level if there is a genuine concern for welfare then Unis have a duty of care to act. However procedurally things have gone wrong / not been followed, and someone (possibly parent, possibly student, YMMV) should be taking it up with the appropriate people at the Uni (or if it’s a private hall provider, the management company) and then taking it from there.
OK, maybe I'm underplaying the seriousness by suggesting it's an error that will be fixed by an apology and retraining. It's my opinion, not a fact, others clearly disagree. Equally I'm entitled to think that those proposing legal action or the police are over escalating. That may yet come based on how it is handled but as a first instance OTT. IMO. No-one from here was there and only one person has first hand knowledge of either of the party's stories.
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order, no matter how many notices they give.
Yet a Uni has a duty of care to act / intervene IF (the unprovable if above) they have concern for welfare, which they said they did in this case. So you can argue till you're blue in the face they broke the law; they can argue back that they thought there was a welfare concern. Those are the 'facts' as we have them.
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order
They do if they have reason to belive there is an emergency, broken roof, water leak etc. They have a right to protect the property.
Equally I’m entitled to think that those proposing legal action or the police are over escalating.
In OP's case the police will let the University deal with matter internally. Unless, the situation was more serious.
Well they generally won’t if theres a ‘do not disturb’ notice on the door…
But that just dodges the question. What if they did?
But thinking about it, that’s a terrible ananolgy as we are not taking about private tennacy or hotel rooms. I’m guessing the rules on halls are somewhere inbetween…
It's your analogy. 🤷♂️
And I can Imagine dealing with students, day in, day out, they have seen some sights and can’t be arsed with any BS.
Is the time to deal with that not when they complete the tenure, rather than randomly when they're in bed?
How would you feel if you’d booked a hotel, the cleaners couldn’t gain access to change the bedding so they unscrewed the security chain whilst you were still in bed?
I'd be hot footing it to the ECHR for sure!
(no wait, I'd be playing merry hell with the manager and looking for an apology and a refund on my booking)
If we're playing whatiffery, how would you feel if they knew someone was inside, but despite knocking on the door could not rouse anyone, and so assumed they must be fast asleep with earplugs in only to find they'd taken an overdose and due to you not acting was beyond saving when finally found.
Landlords also have a right to inspect the property but this is sunbject to a bunch of constrints.
F
or what reasons can landlords gain right of entry?
As a landlord, you can’t request access simply to have a look around, you’ll need to have a legitimate reason, for example:
Inventory checks – usually done at the start and towards the end of the tenancy agreement. Your tenant can also ask for a copy of the property inventory and if they want, they can also be present when checks are carried out.
Property inspections – you’re allowed to carry out house inspections throughout the tenancy, but they’ll need to be scheduled and you’ll have to follow the usual rules about access (24 hours’ notice in writing).
Repairs, maintenance and safety checks – it’s up to you to make sure the property is in a good state of repair. Carrying out an annual gas safety check is also one of your key landlord responsibilities. As such, you can expect your tenant to give you reasonable access to do this.
Property viewings – as tenancy agreements come to an end, it’s reasonable to request access so you can show potential new tenants around the property.
https://www.alanboswell.com/news/landlord-right-of-entry/
If a tenant refuses this tho you cannot force entry except for emergency repairs and it would be up to a court to decide if it was reasonable
If we’re playing whatiffery
If we’re playing whatiffery, do we suppose that rescuing OD'ed students is within the remit of hall inspectors' job description? Reckon that's in their pay grade?
Assuming that this is the case, do we then suppose that their highly trained course of action when faced with a possible suicide or student otherwise in trouble is a) alert authorities to a potential issue / acquire authorisation to force entry / kick in the door with all haste; or b) go "hey, Dave, chuck us that screwdriver will you?"
Why are they even carrying screwdrivers in the first place?
And remember, the OP said this happened to multiple rooms. It wasn't a one-off so 'they panicked' is no excuse either.
and before I get accused of being unreasonable again, I pretty much agree with OP's actions, and I'm not sure I'd yet be satisfied with the explanation and would be tempted to look to escalate further. The only difference is I'd be supporting and empowering my daughter's independence to sort it despite having a huge desire to step in and problem solve it myself.
MY next step (and I'd probably help my daughter to draft the email) would be to follow up my verbal complaint with a written version documenting everything she said and they have said, and asking them to clarify further what steps are being taken to prevent it happening again.
Did I shock you? Good, be ****ing shocked then. I bet you’re not as shocked as she was. If it happened to me I’d be moving out, and I’m not a teenaged woman. How does she sleep at night now?
Whilst I'd agree with the sentiment, your comment was somewhat crude and unnecessary. And my response, as an attempt to 'diffuse' things with an attempt at a bit of humour, was also ill judged, for which I apologise. But you were berating my perceived insensitivity earlier, so perhaps take a step back a bit, and have a moment of self reflection.
I do agree that this is not something to be brushed off. It is possible laws have been broken. As I said; it'll be a good idea to get some legal advice.
Ermmm – are you certain on that? A landlord does have a right of entry but particular conditions must be met. ( according to every tenancy contract I have used and the ones I use are taken directly off the government websites) and as above halls of residence do not fall under tenancy law – they are hotel contracts.
Normal tenant / landlord as in private tenancies does not apply to student halls. The contracts signed are not normal tenancies
That's all well and good, but how does that relate to the actual law? The student 'tenants' or whatever you want to call them, still have rights. Lodgers have less rights than normal tenants, but they still have rights. The HRA may well cover this. I think entering a room someone is using as their place of abode (or 'home', for whatever period of time), without their express consent, may well fall outside of the law. Whether in a student halls or hotel. I think this needs clarifying. Just saying 'it's different' isn't actually helping move the discussion along.
That's pretty much how I see it, from the info given so far, IANAL.
I would argue that more transparency would be needed for the reasons for forced entry in this particular scenario, though...
And as others have said, if your dealing with a bunch of drunk/stoned teenagers on a regular basis, making an appointment could be quite problematic.
I'm not suggesting that applies to the OP's daughter, but it is not beyond the realms of imagination that they deal with students who don't answer, or ignore inspection notices on a regular basis.
Also, the 2 week window seems stupid and disorganised too. They should be given a 1 day window with the option to re-book the visit a day or so later, and THEN if they fail to comply, (genuine welfare issues aside) they can just enter the next day.
If we’re playing whatiffery, do we suppose that rescuing OD’ed students is within the remit of hall inspectors’ job description? Reckon that’s in their pay grade?
Duty of care is on all employees.
The way they discharged this DoC is not in dispute, it was done badly, either not following procedure or the procedures are inadequate or non-existent. BUT pretty much impossible to prove whether the intent was correct or whether they had intent to catch a student in an indelicate moment.
It’s your analogy. 🤷♂️
I wasn't suggesting otherwise... I'm just kinda thinking out loud.
Whilst I’d agree with the sentiment, your comment was somewhat crude and unnecessary. And my response, as an attempt to ‘diffuse’ things with an attempt at a bit of humour, was also ill judged, for which I apologise.
Assuming that's genuine then, accepted, and likewise. Sorry.
It's interesting that my deliberately provocative choice of wording generated more outrage than a couple of random blokes crashing into a young woman's home seemingly has. Meanwhile elsewhere on forum threads, people are screaming about trans people because safe spaces and something about toilets.
Duty of care is on all employees.
The way they discharged this DoC is not in dispute, it was done badly, either not following procedure or the procedures are inadequate or non-existent. BUT pretty much impossible to prove whether the intent was correct or whether they had intent to catch a student in an indelicate moment.
Purely speculating, I'd agree with "non-existent procedure." They've sent a couple of blokes to go inspect the halls with little further instruction and the lads didn't know any different. It surely cannot be policy to break into rooms by routine? Though, that in itself is almost worse.
I wasn’t suggesting otherwise… I’m just kinda thinking out loud.
Fair enough. I misunderstood, sorry about that.
I’d agree with “non-existent procedure.” They’ve sent a couple of blokes to go inspect the halls with little further instruction and the lads didn’t know any different.
I suspect this is very much the case. In which case, the property management company need to sort themselves out a bit. But I also suspect the 'inspectors' are on minimum wage and have to tick thier boxes or they won't be re-employed come contract renewal time.
This sounds very much like bad management rather than a concerted effort to frighten young female students.
BUT... and it's a big BUT! this kind of poor management can create loopholes and opportunities for the less ethical members of society.
So I think it's entirely correct to lodge formal complaints, demand to see codes of operation, etc.
Calling the police and filling law suits is probably premature, given what we are told so far.
100%.
They were lucky, really, that the inspectors weren't 'less ethical.'
If we’re playing whatiffery, how would you feel if they knew someone was inside, but despite knocking on the door could not rouse anyone, and so assumed they must be fast asleep with earplugs in only to find they’d taken an overdose and due to you not acting was beyond saving when finally found.
Then it would be a tragedy from which there would have been a vanishingly small chance of them being in the right place/time to help. And the risk would be no higher than for anyone else living alone.
Discussion would be the same if thread had been about male student; same concerns, same principles, same parental concern.
As someone who's worked night shifts and lived in hotels for far longer than is mentally healthy, I can confirm that cleaners
a) can't read the DnD sign
b) have seen me in varying states of undress
It's absolutely not the same thing. Mildly embarrassing for either party, but definitely 100%* not the same.
*not speaking for all men, actually figure maybe slightly lower.
100%.
They were lucky, really, that the inspectors weren’t ‘less ethical.’
I also agree 100% ... the property management, are leaving themselves wide open here, if what we are told is verbatim.
I also suspect the property company doesn't give a toss, why would they? It's easy money.
they are fufilling thier contract, no more, no less, and that's the issue.
I see this bullshit all the time in contracts.
You can write whatever you want, and have it signed and whitnessed ... if it's an illegal, or an 'unfair term' it's invalid, legally speaking.
A person cannot sign thier rights away.
Did I shock you? Good
Middle aged men making crude comments for effect about teenage women is more icky than shocking, to be honest.
What I've learned from this thread? Perhaps a deeper appreciation for Prince's little red courgette.
A person cannot sign thier rights away.
Brexit is differnet though, it seems other people can sign other peoples rights away.
Yes, I know I've just quoted myself.
This is a health, safety and welfare issue and an important one and should be treated accordingly. I’d take the following steps:
(a) raise a formal complaint with the accommodation provider (use the contact details provided in the licence to occupy / handbook, which should contain a complaints procedure). Then you need to wait for it to go through that procedure but if not satisfactorily deal with then escalate it (eg: find out which company is the ultimate owner of the company that owns the halls (is there any branding?) and approach the directors of that business on LinkedIn
(b) report in writing to the University via the student welfare officer / dept
(c) also report in writing to the students union and ask for their advice. That’s exactly what they are there for.
Include details of how the incident made her feel (scared, intimidated, privacy violated or whatever it is).
Whilst the threat of legal action might help get engagement, it’s not in itself going to lead to a worthwhile outcome.
So you wrote your post, and ended it with this,
If a tenant refuses this tho you cannot force entry except for emergency repairs and it would be up to a court to decide if it was reasonable
which shows that the landlord does in fact not have a right of entry. (I will accept I should have modified it to "except if they have a court order it then it must be executed by an officer of the court").
The analogy is debt.
I loan you 500 quid, you agree to pay me back next week.
After a year of waiting and asking and demanding I lose my patience and pop round your house, break in and take loads of stuff that I can sell to recover my debt and costs.
Is this legal? Do I have a right to do it? No and no.
If I did this would I feel the long arm of the law. Yes most definitely.
However I can go to the courts and ask them to do it for me, they will arbitrate the facts to decide if you do owe me the money and they will effectively direct the actions taken.
Same with landlords. The landlord can get the courts to grant them access, but they need to prove a need.
With my tenants, I ask for access and get written or electronic acceptance. (e.g. a reply to a text is good enough for me. "Bob, can I pop in and do a maintenance inspection on weds?" Bob replies "Yeah I won't be there though does that matter" Me "No prob, I'll let you know if I find any issues")
If they refuse, and I have had tenants refuse, well without resorting to the courts there is nothing I can do.
SO just giving notice, and then turning up, effectively breaking in, without being able to prove acceptance, to me is breaking the law. And I know of cases where landlord who have been egregious is in this way have been criminally prosecuted.
To me even if they can prove the OP's daughter was given notice (eg in a recognized way), but without acceptance this does not give the right of entry.
Once again. University halls are not standard tenancies.
You do have a right of entry under an standard tenancy contract but not a right to break in. You may need a court to enforce your right. that is not the same as not having a right of entry.
Surely also depends on what is agreed to in the Uni accomodation agreement. If they have included access in that and as long as it's not an unfair contract, and the student has agreed to it, what a standard (non-Uni) tenancy agreement would look like is of not great import?
FWIW (my D is not at So'ton, and IDK where the OP is so this is just an example because when I googled it came up)
Page 8 clause 7.4 covers Allowing us access. Have not pasted because then it'll be covered in <span> brackets and don't have time to edit down but they refer to the Universities UK / Guild of HE code of practice
- and states clearly they will try and give notice but "we reserve our right to enter the Accommodation on shorter notice or no notice
at all....."
- they then state what they would consider necessity but if the OP contract is anything similar, the only issue is whether that necessity was reached..... and then whether that was properly documented (and we go off on another lap because we'll never really know)
Once again. University halls are not standard tenancies.
Once again; explain how this affects the student’s right to privacy under the HRA. Keep saying ‘it’s different’ doesn’t explain anything.
– and states clearly they will try and give notice but “we reserve our right to enter the Accommodation on shorter notice or no notice
at all…..”
Even if this is stated in a contract, if the law trumps this, it’s irrelevant and invalid. This is what we need to actually know. I’m pretty sure landlords or their agents can’t just force entry whenever they choose, regardless of how much ‘notice’ they have given.
In the Soton contract, it does state that they can gain access under particular circumstances, or if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect a breach of rules is taking place. That bit is very important. ‘Reasonable Grounds’. This could be open to interpretation, but forcing an entry would require someone to have to explain themselves. That would be the tricky legal bit. I’d imagine all sorts of protocols would have to be met before such a thing could happen. Was this the case with the incident in question? That’s the real crux of the matter.
I don't have a lot to add, as this is taking the usual STW route, but these are my internal feelings about this situation:
1) Universities handle hundreds of thousands of halls residents a year - I suspect that they all have very similar contracts and access rights
2) I bet this sort of situation occurs a lot
3) I'm wondering why they needed to inspect the room seeing as they've only been occupied about 6 weeks
4) As a father with 3 girls at university I've learnt that it's best that I keep out of the way. I'm sure I don't hear about 95% of the stuff that they get up to and frankly I don't want to know* - they will sort anything that's not right. YMMV obvs.
5) As I said before - things are rarely as clear cut as they seem, especially when working with just one side of the story.
* Eldest daughter broke the extended family records for hospitalisation - after 5 days my rather pissed eldest daughter fell over some barriers whilst trying to crash a club! Her elder cousins were well impressed!!
I’m wondering why they needed to inspect the room seeing as they’ve only been occupied about 6 weeks
Ha ha never actually seen inside a student room then. From my perspective it's best to reinforce the rules early on.
Mini kitchens set up, gas heaters gas stoves. Smoking in rooms posters on walls, repainting of rooms, once away from home they let their creativity go wild, the list is endless.
All the damage has to be repaired but of course its never their fault.
Ha ha never actually seen inside a student room then.
Only when they've moved in and when they're moving out!! As I said, in my view, they're adults and are best left to figure life out for themselves!
(The only time my 'help' was welcomed was when one daughter's halls [actually a group of purpose built townhouses in a gated area] were locked shut due to covid back in 2020. She was running very low on food and nobody was allowed out so I did a big shop and went over there to hand it through the guarded gate!!)
Edit:
Just for shits & giggles I had a look at the T&C of the halls at one of my girls' universities:
As this Agreement is a licence, we have the right to enter the Accommodation at any time (including during the night)
without giving you notice.
In most instances (out of courtesy only and not because we are legally obliged to do so*), we will enter the Accommodation
during the day giving reasonable prior written notice (poster, text or email) of our intention to enter.
If we do not give you prior notice of our intention to enter the Accommodation, we will knock on the door first in order to
see if you are present then we will let ourselves into the Accommodation using our master key.
Draw whatever conclusions you want from that but I'm pretty sure they'd have drawn that up with full knowledge of the law.
* It's not their first rodeo.
Even if this is stated in a contract, if the law trumps this, it’s irrelevant and invalid. This is what we need to actually know. I’m pretty sure landlords or their agents can’t just force entry whenever they choose, regardless of how much ‘notice’ they have given.
I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that if a major institution like So'ton has that written into their formal contract then it's legal.
I just checked it for Warwick too and they have similar......
In circumstances where the University reasonably suspects that the Student and/or
any other person is/are engaging in conduct which presents a risk to health and/or
safety and/or may amount to a criminal offence, including possession of an illegal
substance or weapon, the University may in its absolute discretion and without notice
enter and search the Accommodation
again - not disputing this shouldn't have happened in this case and the OP is right to raise to management and if necessary escalate based on what is found / proven from that. And NWS discussions about whether there really was a concern for welfare / illegal activity / H&S breach or whatever and whether the decision process to 'force' entry was valid and documented, which forms part of the above decision process - in simple terms it looks to me that in the case of Uni halls the management is allowed access without notice without breaching tenancy law or the HRA.
Wow you lot are still arguing about this!
Why are they even carrying screwdrivers in the first place?
And remember, the OP said this happened to multiple rooms. It wasn’t a one-off so ‘they panicked’ is no excuse either.
I think essentially I made that point way back at the beginning, except it was part of my "I don't buy the chain being removed, quickly, quietly, easily - are you sure you have the whole facts".
If she had topped herself then breaking in wouldn’t have achieved anything anyway. Might as well wait for reports of missing person, or smell. If my neighbour didn’t answer the door I wouldn’t immediately smash my way in to see if they’d just had a stroke or a fall even though that’s far far more likely than anything happening to the young lady in this thread.
OK, but lets say you have the key to an elderly neighbour's house for whatever reason (this was not an uncommon situation where I grew up, my parents still have next door's key, and I know friends who have a key for a neighbour they are close to). Perhaps you go round to change a light bulb at 1pm, your neighbour knew you were coming and expects you to let yourself in to change the bulb if she is out. There's no answer. You get your key and discover the chain is on. You continue to shout and get no response. Do you force your way in or go call the police to ask them to let you in? Its irrelevant - what would be odd would be if you got in, changed the lightbulb and left without wondering how or where the old lady was!
@configuration - presumably your wife has now explained the human rights act to you and that it primarily serves to stop the state from exploiting/mistreating its citizens? It may be argued that a university is an arm of the state, but I'd bet the halls are sufficiently "arms length" that their policies are unlikely to be determined by the state. If they are considered a "Public authority" then presumably any one of the long list of exceptions would apply (such as checking that your room is not a fire hazard about to burn the building down and endangering all the other students). Its not clear that even if there was no necessity and it was a public authority that privacy was actually invaded - had they ripped the covers off that would be different, but since they didn't search the room nor expose the poor girl its not clear anyone actually lost any privacy. Perhaps your wife has also read a university halls "license agreement" and knows they aren't tenancies at all, nor are they likely to be considered your home. Legally, usually they are akin to staying in a hotel. Legally using keys to open a locked place without authority can be a crime but they were authorised by the owner, I'm certain that the police will have zero interest.
How would you feel if you’d booked a hotel, the cleaners couldn’t gain access to change the bedding so they unscrewed the security chain whilst you were still in bed?
Given the amount of time, effort, noise, I'd likely have had to ignore to get to that point I'd not be surprised. If they sneaked up and surreptitiously unlocked the door and removed the chain so they could watch me sleep that would be different, but since the OP's daughter was asleep and then froze we've no suggestion that they were trying to do this by stealth.
@Cougar - your comments that were intended to shock are about a real person who might actually read this thread. I'd suggest your thoughts are probably at least as gross an invasion of her privacy as anything the university did.
Duty of care is on all employees.
Comments like this make me understand why Americans like guns so much.
Do that in Texas and the employees risk getting both barrels of a sawn off shotgun in the face.
WTF are you on about? It's a simple statement of fact. If an employee has a concern for H&S or Welfare they have a duty to act, it's not complex. What has America's gun lobby got to do with that simple premise?
As this Agreement is a licence, we have the right to enter the Accommodation at any time (including during the night)
without giving you notice.
In most instances (out of courtesy only and not because we are legally obliged to do so*), we will enter the Accommodation
during the day giving reasonable prior written notice (poster, text or email) of our intention to enter.
If we do not give you prior notice of our intention to enter the Accommodation, we will knock on the door first in order to
see if you are present then we will let ourselves into the Accommodation using our master key.Draw whatever conclusions you want from that but I’m pretty sure they’d have drawn that up with full knowledge of the law.
Hmm. Can you verify this is legal? This is the bit that people need to know. As already mentioned; you can write any old guff into a contract, but it's not enforcable/valid unless it falls within the remit of law. Full stop.
Personally, I' not be living anywhere where the landlords claim they can enter your 'home' without any notice, at anytime. End of.
Hmm. Can you verify this is legal? This is the bit that people need to know.
IANAL, but as i said the fact it seems to be in the contracts with many Universities and HEI's leads me to believe that it is. As said - they have legal depts and have been operating these contracts / licences for donkey's years. I'd say unchallenged, maybe it has been and the challenge has been rebuffed, IDK.
Can you verify that all the HEI's operating to this code of practice or versions of it are in fact operating illegally?
Personally, I’ not be living anywhere where the landlords claim they can enter your ‘home’ without any notice, at anytime. End of.
Yeah, but as i think we've said time and again, it's not a 'home' in the same sense of the word.
@configuration – presumably your wife has now explained the human rights act to you
She listened briefly to my explanation, then said 'I haven't got time for this'. Which is fair enough. She's not being paid to give advice here, and she's too busy anyway. Hence why it's a good idea to employ a lawyer specialising in such matters.
Perhaps your wife has also read a university halls “license agreement” and knows they aren’t tenancies at all, nor are they likely to be considered your home.
Can you verify this 100% as fact? Because facts, not opinions, are what's important here.
IANAL, but as i said the fact it seems to be in the contracts with many Universities and HEI’s leads me to believe that it is
So, you can't, then? Ok. Anyone who can?
Legally, usually they are akin to staying in a hotel.
Again, can you verify this 100%? Are you suggesting that hoteliers can just enter your (locked) hotel room at any time, without notice or warning? Facts please.
Yeah, but as i think we’ve said time and again, it’s not a ‘home’ in the same sense of the word.
And again; can we verify this 100% please? What is the UK legal definition of a 'home'?
Hmm. Can you verify this is legal?
Do you honestly think that it isn't?
As I've already said, we're talking about universities here - they've been around a long time and have probably come across [multiple times] every situation you can imagine. And I'm pretty sure they've got legal departments containing legal types.
Anyway... From gov.uk
4.5 What access rights does the landlord have?
The landlord, or his or her agent, has the legal right to enter your accommodation at reasonable times of day to carry out the repairs for which he or she is responsible and to inspect the condition and state of repair of the property. For tenancies, the landlord must give 24 hours’ notice in writing of an inspection. For licences where unrestricted access is agreed, or required for the landlord to carry out his or her responsibilities, it is not necessary to give notice. It may be helpful to include the arrangements for access and procedures for getting repairs done in a written agreement. In an emergency, the landlord can enter without giving notice.
Again, can you verify this 100%? Are you suggesting that hoteliers can just enter your (locked) hotel room at any time, without notice or warning? Facts please.
You're welcome.
(the above also applies to hotels, etc. Google it yourself.)
Well, well, so it is legal then
What a surprise.
– and states clearly they will try and give notice but “we reserve our right to enter the Accommodation on shorter notice or no notice at all…..”
Two things jump out me here.
The first is broadly as Config is saying. They can say anything they like, but a contract cannot waive statutory rights.
Posters here have variously posted with about landlord rights, analogised with hotels, asserted that a halls is different from both of those, and stated that a uni probably knows what it's doing. But unless I missed it, no-one seems to actually know definitively what her rights are.
Secondly, nowhere in this or other subsequent posts copying policy does it say "if you don't answer the door we'll break in." They read to me like it's intended as an emergency measure, they reserve the right to enter the property if it's on fire or there are safeguarding concerns, not because it's Sunday afternoon and there's nothing on telly. Do any of the Uni contracts include a clause claiming the right to enter by force? I'll bet they don't.
@Cougar – your comments that were intended to shock are about a real person who might actually read this thread. I’d suggest your thoughts are probably at least as gross an invasion of her privacy as anything the university did.
This has been pointed out to me outside of the forum by a friend with a daughter who I asked for a steer. I apologise unreservedly, potentially upsetting the OP was the last thing I meant to do. I wanted readers to take the issue more seriously, was all.
Do you honestly think that it isn’t?
I didn't know, that's why I've been asking questions. Because that's how you learn.
The section of law you've quoted pertains to renting a room in someone's house; ie where the landlord is resident. There is also a section that would have been helpful had you also quoted it:
"This list only gives an indication of how different arrangements might be viewed: it is not definitive, and the important factor for any particular case is how the arrangement works in practice. Only a court can say with any certainty whether a letting is a tenancy or a licence to occupy; and the fact that a landlord may say that what he is offering or has granted is a licence rather than a tenancy (or the written agreement is headed “licence”), does not necessarily mean that this is what it will be considered to be. If there is a dispute or other issue where the nature of the let could be important, it is advisable to get legal advice."
Well, well, so it is legal then
Is it?
no-one seems to actually know definitively what her rights are.
This. We're back to square one really.
This has been pointed out to me outside of the forum by a friend with a daughter who I asked for a steer. I apologise unreservedly, potentially upsetting the OP was the last thing I meant to do. I wanted readers to take the issue more seriously, was all.
Fairs.