You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Cross-posted with Sharkbait.
So it's not necessary for a landlord to give notice.
Were the room inspectors "the landlord" from a legal standpoint? (Ie, does "the landlord's representative" count?)
Where does it give them the right to break in? "No notice" implies turning up unannounced on your doorstep, not turning up unannounced in your bedroom, no?
There are other professional landlords on here also, so I am not trying to claim appeal to authority, but I have been doing this for over 20 years.
I can promise you all the legal guidance we receive is that it is in fact illegal for a landlord or agent to enter the premises without permission from the tenant. Ultimately, a landlord has no right of entry unless the tenant grants access or the landlord is given permission by the courts.
OFT 356 which is enforcable states in section 3.32
3.32 We would object to a provision giving the landlord an excessive right to enter the rented property. Under any kind of lease or tenancy, a landlord is required by common law to allow his tenants ‘exclusive possession’ and ‘quiet enjoyment’ of the premises during the tenancy. In other words, tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. Landlords are unfairly disregarding that basic obligation if they reserve a right to enter the property without giving reasonable notice or getting the tenant’s consent, except for good reason.
The https://www.gov.uk/ page is not a source of law. They often get it very wrong.
You need to look at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
Start with housing act 2004 look at section 11 that covers this.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/contents
Section 11 does make it clear that if there is an emergency the landlord can enter without permission, an inspection is not an emergency.
Any other entry inteferes with a tenants right of quiet enjoyment.
You also need to look at Protection from Eviction act 1977 which also covers harrassmanet.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/43
The landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a) he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or
(b) he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,
and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
Despite what all the armchair lawyers and philosophers on here think, if the OP wanted to enforce this I would expect plenty of legal firms to be interested.
There is a great blog here for landlords that covers most of the points I have made.
here
Personally I won't be trying to shoehorn bullshit clauses into contracts to allow me to break into girls rooms under the guise of inspection or any other crap, I am morally opposed and also don't want to fall foul of the civil or criminal courts.
I have once forced entry when my tenants were seemingly away and the neighbours complained of a gas smell, me and a Transco engineer that I called, attended and I used my key to let us in where he found a leak and shut everythign off. I felt pretty confident that this would not lead to harrassment charges.
So it’s not necessary for a landlord to give notice.
We're still not 100% sure, as what Sharkbait posted relates to lodgers rather than halls residents really.
Were the room inspectors “the landlord” from a legal standpoint? (Ie, does “the landlord’s representative” count?)
Where does it give them the right to break in? “No notice” implies turning up unannounced on your doorstep, not turning up unannounced in your bedroom, no?
This stuff is also important. Employees of the landlord can be 'agents', but even that can be a bit of a grey area. And we still don't know 100% if they can enter an occupied room.
5plus8
You are clearly a decent landlord and the debate between you and I is merely one of semantics. IMO you do have a right of entry ( under some conditions) but may need a court order to enforce this right.
Other than that semantic point we are in agreement
Problem is that University halls are not normal tenancies. Beyond that I know no more detail
I don't doubt any of that (and harassment is a great point).
But does landlord / tenant legislation apply to a student in halls? And has she in fact implicitly given permission in the contract?
Morally it's off the scale wrong. Legally it seems it's a bit tricksier.
it is in fact illegal for a landlord or agent to enter the premises without permission from the tenant.
But the tenant has signed a contract agreeing to::
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.
which in essence gives permission. Unless (and with due respect to Config and Sharkbait, maybe that Gov.uk statement is NOT as definitive as i thought) it is breaking statutory law. And the lap counter goes up again.
We’re still not 100% sure, as what Sharkbait posted relates to lodgers rather than halls residents really.
No, it relates to licences. Lodgers have a licence in the same way that a halls resident does. Go and google it.... the Shelter web site says the same.
no-one seems to actually know definitively what her rights are.
This. We’re back to square one really.
No we're not. She signed the licence agreement and the above clearly states that entry is permitted at any time.
Secondly, nowhere in this or other subsequent posts copying policy does it say “if you don’t answer the door we’ll break in.”
Well they didn't did they?!
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.
No it says they can enter a room at any time they want to - and that's what every renter of a uni halls room agrees to in writing (and the gov document states is legal).
Jeez... some of you just want to argue!
Problem is that University halls are not normal tenancies. Beyond that I know no more detail
Well stop ****ing saying it over and over again then! 🤣
No we’re not. She signed the licence agreement and the above clearly states that entry is permitted at any time.
If the licence agreement isn't valid in law, then....
↪️🟥1️⃣
No it says they can enter a room at any time they want to – and that’s what every renter of a uni halls room agrees to in writing (and the gov document states is legal).
Does it? 100%? Can you verify this?
Jeez… some of you just want to argue!
I want to learn, to become better educated and informed. I see it as 'questioning' rather than arguing.
But the tenant has signed a contract agreeing to
This might fall foul of fair trading, unfair terms and conditions, you can't sign right your rights away etc. I am no lawyer but I wouldn't be trying to use any contract terms to get around inalienable rights...
TJ -indeed semnatics, Barclays has a right to the money I owe them, but they can't come round and take it without the courts. Same with landlord, he has all kinds of rights, recovery, rent, entry, eviction etc, but can't enforce it without the courts to prove that these rights apply in the circumstances.
Sharkbait - the implication of your stance is that if I could persuade you to sign a contract agreeing it, then I could legally cut your fingers off. I mean you signed it, so tough right?
You cannot sign your rights away and big block landlords will try and use any bullshit means to have power over you so they can do what they like. Doesn't make it right, fair, enforcable, or legal.
What is a tenancy?
A tenancy is a legal interest in land where an occupier has the exclusive possession of premises for a period of time and pays rent.What is a licence?
A licence is personal permission for someone to occupy accommodation and does not give an occupier a legal interest in the land.
Uni halls residents are not tenants (they have entered a legal agreement stating as much) and as such have different rights.
I don’t doubt any of that (and harassment is a great point).
But does landlord / tenant legislation apply to a student in halls? And has she in fact implicitly given permission in the contract?
Morally it’s off the scale wrong. Legally it seems it’s a bit tricksier.
Cougar - in answer, I dunno, but given the cases I hear about of foolish landlrods being prosecuted for exactly this type of thing I wouldn't want to test it from a landlords point of view.
Sharkbait - again sources. Shelter have a reputation for getting this stuff wrong.
Done.... this is ridiculous!!
Uni halls residents are not tenants (they have entered a legal agreement stating as much) and as such have different rights.
So what are their rights? That pertain to this thread?
So what are their rights?
They signed them away I think.
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.
She strikes me as a very wise woman. What she should have said is, "and you don't have time to be arguing with people on the internet about someone you don't actually care about hypothetical human rights either" 😉
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Can you verify this 100% as fact? Because facts, not opinions, are what’s important here.</span>
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">I can verify 100% that most classic halls of residences are rented on a "License to Occupy basis" not a tenancy. As you point out later ultimately a court could determine that's nonsense (like a court might determine Uber drivers have workers rights even though they are self employed etc), but nobody who reads and signs a normal uni halls agreement does so under the belief they are entering a formal tenancy. </span>
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?
Ultimately only the Supreme court can - but what we are telling you, even if you are trying to shout very loudly that we have to prove it or you refuse to accept it, is that (a) its a widely used form of agreement in the higher education accommodation market; (b) the universities all believe it is the correct form of contract and valid; (c) if its not a formal tenancy then tenants rights are totally irrelevant.
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.
Yes I 100% can verify that the standard T&Cs used by many universities for their halls of residence are written on the same basis is a hotel / holiday rental etc. (Some unis may use different terms for some of their accommodation - e.g. where its is rented as a flat to a group of students with shared liabiity). Most universities will have their T&Cs available somewhere on line - feel free to go and look. I obviously haven't read them all so can't say how many say they will enter without notice. I'd expect if you leave a tap running and go away they will all use their master key to turn it off. Every one I've ever seen says they will (or have the right to) carry out inspections. Hotel T&Cs generally do have an explicit right of access written in - imagine if they needed court proceedings to chuck you out for living your rock n roll lifestyle fantasy.
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’?
You know your 100% proof type shouting sounds like an anti-vax nutter? How about you prove we are wrong and the courts have determined that university halls of residence are the students' home? I'm willing to consider appropriate contexts beyond the human rights act too, and don't need the law to have been tested in the Appeal Court, but I would prefer actual law or case details rather than a daily mirror story.
She strikes me as a very wise woman.
She's just eaten a crumb of something she found on the kitchen table, thought it was a piece of biscuit perhaps; turns out it's actually a bit of plaster or house debris. 🤨
Yes I 100% can verify that the standard T&Cs used by many universities for their halls of residence are written on the same basis is a hotel / holiday rental etc.
So you'll be happy to show us then, so that we can become better informed.
You know your 100% proof type shouting sounds like an anti-vax nutter?
The thing is, in law, you generally have to be 100% right, or you end up looking a bit of a tit. Isn't it better, for the sake of the OP, his daughter and anyone else on this thread who is still even remotely interested, that we can establish the facts of law here, rather than people assuming and 'believing' things that might not actually be true?
Most universities will have their T&Cs available somewhere on line
As we've already established, this may well not actually be valid anyway. It's good to check things properly.
How about you prove we are wrong and the courts have determined that university halls of residence are the students’ home?
I'm not trying to prove anyone 'wrong'. I just want to know 100% what rights people have. Instead of being rude to me, why not prove your own arguments right?
Secondly, nowhere in this or other subsequent posts copying policy does it say “if you don’t answer the door we’ll break in.”
Well they didn’t did they?!
They unscrewed the bloody lock! What would you call it?
Isn't there a legal concept here, "going equipped"? Right lads, today you're going to be undertaking room inspections on single young women. Don't forget your screwdriver!
Cougar – in answer, I dunno, but given the cases I hear about of foolish landlrods being prosecuted for exactly this type of thing I wouldn’t want to test it from a landlords point of view.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that it should be tested in this case. 😁
Yes I 100% can verify that the standard T&Cs used by many universities for their halls of residence are written on the same basis is a hotel / holiday rental etc.
Sure. But.
Your hotel staff have a right to attend to your room without notice, and this is expected when you rent a room. No fish no fowl, or something. They have an all-rooms master key and everything. Would you say that this right extends, under normal circumstances, to them then snaking an arm through the gap in the door to unscrew a security chain if you haven't answered their knocking in a timely manner?
An inspection without notice is fair game. It's invasive and I don't agree with it, but I've known students and been one myself so I understand it. But that surely does not mean they can just stroll on in unannounced. They turn up, you let them in after you've got your pants back on. No?
What's the purpose of this inspection exactly, one which necessitates access right now rather than coming back tomorrow?
The thing is, in law, you generally have to be 100% right, or you end up looking a bit of a tit
If this is how you think the law works then you're very mistaken. I'd suggest another conversation with your wife.
This might fall foul of fair trading, unfair terms and conditions, you can’t sign right your rights away etc. I am no lawyer but I wouldn’t be trying to use any contract terms to get around inalienable rights…
It might not be the 100.00% proof that Config needs, but the fact that AFAICT every Uni / HEI is using this sort of agreement / licence and form of words indicates to me that no-one's statutory rights are being infringed in a way that they don't have the right to agree to.
Sharkbait – the implication of your stance is that if I could persuade you to sign a contract agreeing it, then I could legally cut your fingers off. I mean you signed it, so tough right?
No, in the sense that I think you mean it, as a 'penalty clause' that would still be against the law / unfair contracts. In fact that's even part of why car park clampers can't levy charges against overstayers to anything like the extent they used to.
But suppose you had gangrene in your finger and contracted a surgeon to remove it.... that wouldn't then be unfair terms to then complain you had your finger cut off.
(derailment - Now say you want your finger removed because .... well you just do? Where's the legality of that? IIRC there was a case a while ago for extreme cosmetic surgery / body modification where someone, maybe a local authority, was arguing that even though the operator and recipient were willing, the mods broke the law and he got done for GBH. Unpick the morals of that!)
If you're going down that derailment route, BDSM for sexual (or I suppose, any) purposes between consenting adults is illegal in the UK. Consent isn't considered a legal defence against physical harm. The case you're referring to is probably "R vs Brown".
Erm, so I hear.
If this is how you think the law works then you’re very mistaken
If you think I'm very much mistaken, then you're very much mistaken.
AFAICT
No offence, but your opinion isn't really adequate sorry.
Is it possible the armchair lawyers on here can park their egos for a bit, and try to actually understand the concern some people might have for someone to feel safe and secure within their own 'home' (we still haven't established a firm legal definition of this, btw, but for sake of argument, student accommodation is still 'home' for those who live there for the period they need to). What has happened to the OP's daughter is horrible, and even if 'legal' (we're still not clear about that), still isn't 'right'. If the OP and their daughter can establish better boundaries as a result of this incident and thread, isn't that the best outcome? Let's work towards that then.
So, again just for shits and giggles, I thought I'd get some info from my daughters:
[12:29, 03/11/2022] Sharkbait: Quick question.... When you were in halls, did your room have a chain on the inside of the door or was it just the handle lock?
[12:30, 03/11/2022] Daughter 1: Just the handle lock
[12:32, 03/11/2022] Daughter 2: Just handle lock
[12:34, 03/11/2022] Daughter 3: No chain
I then asked if they'd been walked in on:
[12:37, 03/11/2022] Daughter 3: I got walked in a few times while I was asleep
[12:38, 03/11/2022] Daughter 3: If they came to fix the radiator
[12:38, 03/11/2022] Daughter 1: Just handle Locks but there were loads of times the security would come into our rooms
[12:38, 03/11/2022] Daughter 3: But I probs just missed their knock
[12:38, 03/11/2022] Sharkbait: Were you bothered?
[12:38, 03/11/2022] Daughter 3: No I was sleepy
[12:39, 03/11/2022] Daughter 2: Yeah I’ve been walked in on when sleeping
I also asked my mate who owns a number of halls at 6 universities all over the country [all built within the last 6 years]:
[12:35, 03/11/2022] Sharkbait: Quick question.... And I know I'm very likely asking the wrong person but, in your halls, do your rooms have a chain on the inside of the door or just the handle lock?
[12:41, 03/11/2022] Matey: Definitely no chains.
Management have to able to get in,
In case of emergency.
Always an electronic fob system with handle on inside only.
Suitably impressed with my knowledge?
I'm not implying anything with the above but, from this information, that's halls at 9 universities that don't have a chain on the inside of the door and all three of my girls have experienced security entering the room whilst they've been asleep ....... which could easily be in the middle of the day!
I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it clearly happens a lot and none of my girls were bothered.
So, again just for shits and giggles
I'm glad it's all such a laugh for you.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but it clearly happens a lot and none of my girls were bothered.
Oh well that's ok then; it's not an issue and the OP's daughter is wrong for being frightened and feeling unsafe.
Thread closed.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that it should be tested in this case. 😁
Me too.
Management have to able to get in,
In case of emergency.
Were they management?
Was there an emergency?
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but it clearly happens a lot
and none of my girls were bothered.
You're right.... I shouldn't have put that bit, sorry. Everybody's different.
Oh, hey, I have an idea.
Ask your mate if he instructed "inspectors" to just stroll in on a whim. Forcing entry if they couldn't get in. Carrying screwdrivers. Into a single female occupancy room. Multiple times.
I'm not condoning anything.
I've simply pointed out that this sort of thing seems to happen a lot and that, from a [admittedly limited] sample of 9 universities, none of them have a chain on the inside of the door (and at these locations the point of 'forced entry' is mute).
Yes I 100% can verify that the standard T&Cs used by many universities for their halls of residence are written on the same basis is a hotel / holiday rental etc.
So you’ll be happy to show us then, so that we can become better informed.
Go to google pick some universities, find their halls T&Cs - see if they are written like a lease. Its not difficult. I don't need to do this because I've had reason to look at several in the last few years anyway and remember my own from a long time ago.
You know your 100% proof type shouting sounds like an anti-vax nutter?
The thing is, in law, you generally have to be 100% right, or you end up looking a bit of a tit. Isn’t it better, for the sake of the OP, his daughter and anyone else on this thread who is still even remotely interested, that we can establish the facts of law here, rather than people assuming and ‘believing’ things that might not actually be true?
Well that's how we got into the stupid circular argument in the first place. Someone asserted that landlords don't have the right to do this. Someone else pointed out that Universities aren't technically landlords in this regard. And you've now invented a new standard of proof which required to establish that. FWIW nothing in law is EVER 100% certain. Its all about people's opinion, sometimes pretty much everyone agreed on what it means, othertimes it keeps your wife in a job because it requires a bit more thought and sometimes you need the court to decide because opinions are divided. Even when the court decides, the appeal court might disagree. Sometimes the appeal court might not be unanimous on its view so how could anyone be 100% certain. Then years later seemingly similar cases can come back before the courts and be decided differently. Even cases that at first look identical will have subtle technical details than mean they are not.
Most universities will have their T&Cs available somewhere on line
As we’ve already established, this may well not actually be valid anyway. It’s good to check things properly.
How about you prove we are wrong and the courts have determined that university halls of residence are the students’ home?
I’m not trying to prove anyone ‘wrong’. I just want to know 100% what rights people have. Instead of being rude to me, why not prove your own arguments right?
If you think I am being rude - you have no idea what I actually want to write. I remember now why I stopped posting here. There's some really nice, really helpful folk round here and then there's a small cohort who would argue anything for the sake of scoring some imaginary points in some game they play. The OP didn't bother to post her occupancy agreement or suggest which uni so we could make our own inferences so its rather stupid to try to imagine what rights she has (because many of those rights will be created by that contract). However as a general rule halls of residence agreements do not automatically confer the rights normally associated with tenancy agreements. As I said earlier most are written on a similar basis to a hotel or holiday accommodation agreement, have been for years and clearly have never been challenged (despite all those law students!) with enough success for all the uni's to revise this arrangement (if the courts are going to decide your students are tenants and have tenancy rights you certainly want to determine the T&Cs of that yourself not leave it to the judge to make up!). They will usually have an explicit right of access. Its reasonable to expect anyone using this right would knock first - there's no suggestion here that they didn't. Throwing the Human Rights Act into the discussion dilutes the genuine value of the HRA for those people where the state and its authorities may be abusing their power. You brought these points to the table, despite the fact your own wife wasn't interested in discussing them with you. Just saying "IANAL" doesn't mean you can just make throw any old idea in and expect nobody to shoot it down in flames if it is stupid.
Now, like your wife I have better things to do than argue with stupid people when I'm not getting paid for it. If I ever come back - someone please remind me of this thread.
This thread is bonkers.
Anyway, once upon a time I did some work that involved putting access points and IP phones into halls of residence.
I was chaperoned because I wasn't uni staff, but the convention was to knock, and if no answer, to let yourself in (with a key, not by kicking the door down).
I didn't like it because I didn't want to walk in on a sleeper or other, but that was the way it was done.
I’ve simply pointed out that this sort of thing seems to happen a lot and that, from a [admittedly limited] sample of 9 universities, none of them have a chain on the inside of the door (and at these locations the point of ‘forced entry’ is mute).
The OP's daughter's room did, and it was locked. Any further questions?
Two men broke into a single young woman's abode and we're arguing about contracts and tenancy agreements. 🙄
I’ve simply pointed out that this sort of thing seems to happen a lot and that, from a [admittedly limited] sample of 9 universities, none of them have a chain on the inside of the door (and at these locations the point of ‘forced entry’ is mute).
The OP’s daughter’s room did, and it was locked.
Any further questions?
A chain which could be unscrewed from the outside? I think there's a welfare issue there, if that's true.
The OP’s daughter’s room did, and it was locked.
Something for the Uni to think about then as it seems they might be in the minority.
Any further questions?
I don't believe I ever asked one.
FWIW nothing in law is EVER 100% certain.
Are you 100% certain about that? 😉 You're wrong on that, but to indulge you; I used the term '100% right' more as a figure of speech; if you are arguing a case, then its a good idea to get ALL your facts right, as much as is possible, and have as much of the law on your side as you possibly can. Judges and juries need convincing; simply going 'well I think that's how it is', won't cut it.
If you think I am being rude – you have no idea what I actually want to write
You could have just answered some simple questions, and not got yourself into such a froth, misunderstanding people.
Throwing the Human Rights Act into the discussion dilutes the genuine value of the HRA for those people where the state and its authorities may be abusing their power.
So we shouldn't be concerned about a possible breach of someone's rights? Confusing...
Now, like your wife I have better things to do than argue with stupid people when I’m not getting paid for it. If I ever come back – someone please remind me of this thread.
Continued rudeness aside (resorting to abuse only enhances the paucity of your own argument), your verbosity and arrogance hasn't actually led to anything conclusive or helpful. I'm sure your ego has taken a flex, but to what end? Are we any closer to any form of positive outcome here? Have you actually contributed anything genuinely constructive?
Two men broke into a single young woman’s abode and we’re arguing about contracts and tenancy agreements.
Precisely.
Precisely.
Because at the risk of repeating myself,
<FX:voiceover man>PREVIOUSLY ON SINGLETRACK</FX> we were having a discussion on trans rights vs women's rights, and some folk were getting into a right old frot about the almost entirely fictional danger of a bloke in a dress invading women's safe spaces.
So where are all the white knights and TERF gobshites now, when the invasion of a woman's safe space has actually happened? Hey? Why aren't you outraged?
Erm, I'm what some (angry) people might refer to as a 'terf', in that context. I don't think such comments are particularly helpful at this juncture. And I'm very concerned about EVERYONE having 'safe spaces', btw.
Even internet armchair lawyers.
Seems the OP's daughter's room is not a safe space.
we were having a discussion on trans rights
Oh, look. SQUIRREL.
You do seem to have a fascination with women's toilets as you repeatedly mention them on various threads.
Two men broke into a single young woman’s abode and we’re arguing about contracts and tenancy agreements.
Out of interest would there still be the same level of discussion if the chain was not present and the staff had knocked and then opened the door with the key (as agreed to in the signed licence)?
Well this has all got a bit weird.
Can someone let me know when the OP returns with an update from the uni?
I don't think anyone's arguing that it is morally right, to enter someone's 'abode' while they are asleep / otherwise distracted without there being a good reason for doing so and a well documented justification process that leads them to do so -particularly when they believe someone is in there. And i don't think that appropriate process was followed in the case of the OP's daughter.
People's anger and next steps varies, from 'it happens, get over it' to suggestions they should be hauled in front of the ECHR for human rights violations. Everyone's MMV, clearly, but I still think somewhere in between, making a complaint in the first instance and then escalating based on response. Who / how to make that complaint, again MMV
Personally, I think what they did was legal, as documented in the many example contracts / CoP's that have been referenced. I realise that doesn't meet some others exacting proofs, but I suspect they can't be coaxed down from that standard of proof so not trying any more, just calling it as i see it.
So, IMHO legally permitted as per the T&C's, morally not permitted when someone is in there except under specific situations (which this didn't reach as far as we know based on the OP, even if the manager said they were) and needs to be called out as unacceptable.
Things in this life can be both legal and immoral. Sorry, that's how it is, and that's why we are debating both legal and moral considerations. The fact we are looking at legality doesn't mean we disregard morality.
I've nothing constructive to add to this other than to say that my room in Uni halls did not have a chain on the inside.
There were multiple occasions when people let themselves in. Usually the cleaner on a Monday morning but occasionally other staff for reasons lost to the mists of time.
A fun game some (typically male) students played was to lay naked on their bed on a Monday morning clutching their bin and pretending to be asleep for the (typically female) cleaner to deal with.
if I could persuade you to sign a contract agreeing it, then I could legally cut your fingers off. I mean you signed it, so tough right?
You do know that you've just described a surgical consent form don't you?! 😉
You do seem to have a fascination with women’s toilets as you repeatedly mention them on various threads.
I don't. Rather, I have an issue with those who do because it's a lazy stick used to beat down minorities.
If you object to that then, eh, that's on you not me.
Out of interest would there still be the same level of discussion if the chain was not present and the staff had knocked and then opened the door with the key (as agreed to in the signed licence)?
I have no idea. Personally I still think it's out of order but I'd perhaps be a degree less irritated if they'd gained access using an authorised pass rather than a screwdriver.
What do you think?