I watched "Katie and Peter-The Baby Diaries" the other day. There was an upset in their household because their children's nanny had asked for time off to visit her father but it turned out that in fact she had gone off on a holiday to the Algarve.
This was discovered when she failed to come back for work when she was supposed to which left Katie in difficulties. Katie (aka Jordan) had work commitments but being heavily pregnant and with her other children to care for, she was finding it difficult to organise things without the nanny. Bless!
The upshot of this is that Katie was late for an interview on Radio 1 which so incensed the DJ, he point blank refused to interview her when she eventually did arrive. Furthermore he slagged her off on air. Actually I think he behaved very badly but that's not my point here.
The point is that Katie was so angry at the negative publicity she received, she decided to dispense with the nanny's services. So she went into the nanny's private cottage, which was in their grounds and was given to the nanny with her job, in order to pack her stuff into bin bags. It was while Katie was rifling through the nanny's belongings that she discovered that the nanny was actually in the Algarve and had lied to them as to her whereabouts.
Now this is the bit that puzzles me: do the rich and famous not have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us? While I can perfectly understand Katie's anger at the nanny's behaviour, what I can't understand is how she was able to just push the nanny immediately out of her home. Yes, the home was a cottage that belonged to the Andres and yes, it was 'tied'; that is, it went with the nanny's job. But surely, even after the nanny's instant dismissal, there should have been a period of notice before the nanny had to leave the cottage?
Furthermore, is it acceptable that Katie could just bundle the nanny's private possessions into bin bags? Surely this is a gross invasion of her privacy?
Goodness knows that if we could have, we would have bundled our tenant J's stuff into bin bags and left them on the street. But we are not allowed to, by law.
So how come Katie and Peter are able to do so? It doesn't make sense to me.
LetaLife
Pro 
I think it all depends on the contract signed between the Andres and their Nanny.
It is isn't reasonable to expect a couple to have to do without the services of a nanny should the incumbent nanny leave employment for whatever reason. As the accommodation is necessary to the employment activities of the new nanny - it would be reasonable to expect the nanny to leave PDQ so that a new nanny could have somewhere to live.
I expect that there was a clause in the contract between the employers and the nanny which meant that this would be allowable.
I also expect that there was a clause about people allowed into the cottage - such as cleaners etc. or in an emergency such as being concerned regarding the whereabouts of the nanny.
Not being a legal buff I have no expert knowledge - but it has been my experience in the past that all sorts of things can be allowed for if included in a contract and agreed to by both parties.
For example the behaviour of those running the Big Brother show - would probably be contrary to human rights strictly speaking - but the contestants sign a contract to waive their rights in order to take part in the show as far as I am aware.