Let property is uninhabitable; can L cancel tenancy?

[Shazah]

We are renting a property from a private landlord who went throught and agent to rent the property. We were told by the agent ot deal directly with the landlord when we signed the lease agreement (12 months) at the end of February. We moved in to discover that there was a strong smell of gas. We contacted the landlord and I was asked by her to contact the gas company as she had an agreement with them, giving them her contract number. This I did. They came out and promptly disconnected the gas, leaving us without heating or a cooker. The landlady then brought round space heaters and the next day sent round "the best" gas man she could find. He fiddled around, disconnected the gas fire in the lounge and told us she would have to redo the pipes, repair the radiators and put in a new boiler. She refused to do this as she stated that there had been nothing wrong until we moved in. She was also supposed to supply a Landlord's certificate which she did not do and they only came out to do this on Wednesday last week and once again we are without heating, cooker and hot water, because the people who did the certificate cut the supply as they deemed them unsafe or not to standard. This is the second time in six weeks.

We have now been informed by the agent that the landlady no longer wants us as tenants as we are trouble and costing her money. We paid our rent on time, we have not done anything to warrant her accusations of being troublemakers.

I feel we are in the right reporting a gas leak and she should have seen to all of this BEFORE we moved in. The property had stood vacant for two months. We now, after a week without being able to cook or have a bath, have workmen redoing some of the pipes but the lounge gas fire is still condemned. The radiators MAY be fixed this week sometime. We now also have water leak which we think eminates from either the shower or the toilet, running down the wall in the kitchen and dripping from the kitchen ceiling, but are afraid she will evict us if we tell her about it, as we cannot afford to move again.

What are we to do? The agent doesn't seem to want to help as he doesn't want to be 'piggy in the middle'. Can she cancel the contract because of this? Can we claim compensation for another move, if she does cancel and makes us move out? Are we right in requesting that the electrical, gas and plumbing systems are in good working order?

[Jennifer_M]

Shazah, there is no such thing as cancelling an AST, and especially not on the ground that you are asking for a safe property !

Some landlords don't have a clue what they are responsible for and try it on when it comes to spending any kind of money on the property.
If you have been granted an AST for 12 months, this is how long the landlady will have to wait before asking you to move providing you pay your rent on time.

Also she is responsible for keeping the property safe when it comes to gas, electricity and water. If anything breaks down, she has to respond to the problem in a reasonable delay (this depends on how serious the problem is) and get it fixed ASAP.
If she fails to do any essential repair (anything that would put your and your family's life in danger is super urgent I would say) you are entitled to write to her giving her a deadline to get things fixed or you can actually move out to a hotel and get her to pay for it (search on the forums to find cases of people who have successfully done this because their boiler broke down) or get the essential repairs done by a professional (after you've had 3 quotes and chose the most reasonable one) and deduct the cost of the rent.

I suggest you read these articles, they may help you understand your rights and the landlady's duties:

What is a tenancy: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/residential_tenancies.htm
Repairs and maintenance: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/repairs_&_maintenance.htm

I hope this help. Not doubt if I said anything wrong someone with more knowledge will correct me but I do think your landlady is deep in the wrong here.

[Shazah]

Thanks Jennifer

I have been having nightmares about this. :mad: We now have to contact her about the leak in the bathroom and I just know she is going to freak. thanks for the encouragement and advice, though. Much appreciated.

[Paul_f]

Shazah. What you probably don't realise is that both the agent and landlord are committing criminal offences by not furnishing you with a Gas Safety Certificate on the day you took up the tenancy.

Your rights are so strong that virtually anything the landlord does to try to evict you is in contravention of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 until the end of the fixed term. Don't let them intimidate you.

I would be demanding at least a month's rent form the landlord in lieu of what you have gone through and you might like to approach the agent too on their little misdemeanour. It's no good their saying you're to deal directly with the landlord if they can't deal with the lawful requirements on them!

[Shazah]

The landlord has eventually done repairs to the gas pipes. A major leak was discovered and she said it cost her £657. We have suddenly been receiving bills for this amount from British Gas. We have telephoned them to say that it is not for our account but for the landlord but to no availe. Last night we received a final demand. We have sent this account to the Landlady each time we have received it and we also sent a letter to both the landlord and the agent requested them to rectify immediately.

We now risk having a black mark against our name for non payment of bills by British Gas. What can we do? Do we go to court now with this matter or try sending the landlord the bill again? British Gas apparently are not interested in changing the bill to the landlord's name. :mad:

By the way - we have been ignored as far as compensation for the inconvenience of having been without heating or hot water for a week is concerned.

[zoe]

You could pay the bill and then withhold this amount from the rent. you will need to put this in writting though. you should also withold a months rent in lui of compenation also.

If they want this money off you they can take you to court but it is unlikely that they will win.

You cannot be evicted until the end of the 12 months.

But they might try and oull a fast one with your deposit, again you can resolve this by going to court. you are in the right.

Zoe

[MrWoof]

The landlord has eventually done repairs to the gas pipes. A major leak was discovered and she said it cost her £657. We have suddenly been receiving bills for this amount from British Gas. We have telephoned them to say that it is not for our account but for the landlord but to no availe.Phone British Gas once more, take the name of the person you speak to, then write to BG, to billing queries and set out the details that you are a tenant and the landlord is responsible for the bill and has agreed this, give the landlord's address. Include in the letter that you have contacted BG several times and that in your opinion, them chasing you for payment may constitute harrassment. This will ensure that BG's legal team get involved. Post it recorded delivery. Read through all these replies again. You are holding all the cards.

[Paul_f]

Mr Woof. You're making the classic mistake of putting the onus on a tenant to sort out something that's none of their business! It's the landlord's problem. If I were the tenant I would not be paying any rent until the landlord sorted out this mess. I would send any withheld rent "on account" to BG, and when it had been settled, I'd probably add a little on for my trouble of having to deal with it and deduct this from the rent too! Job done!

By the time BG got round to taking any legal action it would all be settled anyway.

You should get into your mindset the way you should deal with duff landlords instead of offering "solutions".

[sunnysan]

Hi

Long story but I will try and keep it short as possible.

About 3 weeks ago 1/4 of the ceiling in our living room came down. After a week of the agent (F$%^&&) telling us as far as they where concerned it was safe, contractors came in declared it unsafe and pulled the whole ceiling down.

Initially the managment company, insisted that the accommodation was habitable and only after a week of fighting with them and the management company we managed to get the managment companies insurer to agree in writing to cover our accomodation costs before and during the repairs.

We are now living in short term accommodation arranged by us and complicated by the fact that we have a dog and live in London where short term pet friendly accomodation is not an easy thing to find.

We have a clause in our lease stating that if the property remains uninhabitable for a month either party can terminate the lease.

The insurance companies original definition of habitable was a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen which is why they ininitially refused to pay for alternative accommodation.

Apart from the fact that there is plaster dust everywhere now, all our belongings are now stacked in the bedroom and kitchen while there is no ceiling in the living room, which incidently comprises about 2/3 of the property.

The landlord has only been communicating through the agency which have not helped us in the slightest during this whole time, and we are now in a tiny studio flat awaiting the repairs to the ceiling.

Even though the costs of our alternative accomodation have been covered, we are certainly not getting what we paid for and all of this has been a massive inconvienience with little or no support from any other involved parties.

Now there is some issue with the insurance(I understand the freeholder (MGT companies) insurnace is paying) and the whole processseems to be stuck waiting for permission from the insurance company to commence repairs.

We have a clause in our lease stating that if the property remains "uninhabitable" for a month, either party can terminate the contract.

My question after my sad story is, since we are staying in alternative accomodation paid for by insurance, does this imply that the accommodation is not habitable until the repairs are made?

[sunnysan]

AST

Other relevant info

1) 18 Month Contract, No BC(We wanted something permanent)
2) Rent paid biannually in 6 month blocks IE We paid 6 months upfront
3) We are in the second month of our tenancy

Basically we wanted a long term lease so we offered the 6 month to get a better monthly rate which we did as well as the long lease. It seemed like a good idea since we wanted stability and before the ceiling caved in :)

[jeffrey]

Initially the managment company, insisted that the accommodation was habitable and only after a week of fighting with them and the management company we managed to get the managment companies insurer to agree in writing to cover our accomodation costs before and during the repairs....

We have a clause in our lease stating that if the property remains uninhabitable for a month either party can terminate the lease.

The insurance companies original definition of habitable was a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen which is why they ininitially refused to pay for alternative accommodation....

My question after my sad story is, since we are staying in alternative accomodation paid for by insurance, does this imply that the accommodation is not habitable until the repairs are made?
So it's a question of whether the property is habitable. Do you want to argue that it's not (with a view to ending the AST for that reason)?

[sunnysan]

That is what it boils down to yes

My temporary situation at the moment is not ideal and since the insurance company appears to be taking their time(I think there might be some kind of claim by freeholder insurance against a leaseholder, but I am being kept in the dark)

I would like the option to terminate the tenancy if the work has not been done in a month.

I would on principle not break a contract and other than that if I break contract now I would lose a lot on money.

Notwithstanding the legality of the situation, we have had to fight tooth and nail with the lettings agent and managment company to even get compensated and our predicament seems to be of no concern to any party in this situation.

The flat is filled with dust, any time anybody walks in the flat above, bits of debris fall from the exposed wood in the sitting room ceiling. I believe there is a good argument to say its not habitable, and based on photographs passed to the managment agent, which I believe he showed the insurers, we have been given permission to seek alternative accomodation for the duration of the repairs, which we have done

Dos that imply that the property in not habitable?

If they are not going to fix it up quickly I want to terminate the tenancy as I dont see why we should be inconvienienced any longer than neccessary by something which is not our fault.

[Rodent1]

Just how bad is it ?

Are we talking bath leaking and ceiling down which can be rectified with overboarding, plaster and paint ....or joist problems

The former can be sorted in a matter of days .........the latter a bit longer .....BUT neither a month or more ???


The Rodent

[sunnysan]

1) The full ceiling has been removed in the sitting room which comprises over half the dwelling

2) There is dust everywhere and debris falling from the exposed lath.

3) The Bedroom and Kitchen are currently being used as storgae fro all items from the living room and are not usable owing to that.

3) Elcetrics are working, water hot and cold is OK.

My latest update is that the insurance company want to reinspect and establish the cause.

My opinion is that the people in the flat above me redid their whole flat 1 month prior to us moving in and I suspect this caused the movement that ultimately led to the ceiling collapsing.

It looks like it might turn into a dispute between the respective leaseholders insurers which means it could take even longer.

All this time we are "piggy in the middle". Since I paid 6 months upfront, I am effectively paying rent for a flat I cannot use. I dont know when it will be fixed either.

Its about a 10 day job which has not even got the go-ahead yet.

If its going to turn into a catfight between the respective leaseholders insurers I want to terminate the tenancy legally on the grounds that the managent companies insurers have implied its not habitable by paying for alternative accomodation.

Whether its goodwill or not, I think its unreasonable to expect us to live there now and during the works. I also feel its unreasonable for us to stay in temporary accommodation for what has amounted to 3 weeks already, when the work in question could be undertaken in max 10 days

My question is how my point of view would stand up to legal scrutiny shoudl that be required.

My choice would be to sort this situation out amicably, but the LL has not even spoken to us personally since it happened and IMHO he will not take our personal circumstances into account.

[sunnysan]

Didn't we decide that it's a question for the block's property insurer? See paragraph 10 of your post #1.


My assumption was that since the block insurers (management company) is handling the reimbursement of my accommodation that it is there insurance that is liable.

While the claim for the building works is being evaluated by an underwriter, the mgt co informed me that they wish to have an additional inspection of the property to establish the cause. Why would they want to do this if they felt that the liablity was theirs alone?

My latest sentiments stem from a telephone conversation I had this morning, so it may contradict my initial assumptions.

All this is basically moving away from the issue of :

Since there is no definition of habitable in the lease, and the insurance company are paying for alternative accomodation, in a legal sense would this be viewed as a gesture of goodwill, or as an implied admission that the accomodation is not habitable?

[jeffrey]

I guess that someone has to decide if it is or isn't habitable. Why not ask the block insurer to write that it is not habitable and to send its letter to mgt. co? You then ask mgt. co. to confirm (in writing) that it agrees.

[sunnysan]

This would be the obvious root to go IMHO.

However I do not believe it in the any insurers, the managment company or the landlord to declare the place uninhabitable.

Do you think there is any third party whose verdict on this issue would be considered binding?

[jeffrey]

This would be the obvious root to go IMHO.

However I do not believe it in the any insurers, the managment company or the landlord to declare the place uninhabitable.

Do you think there is any third party whose verdict on this issue would be considered binding?
If L cannot, who could? L might not want to, of course, but I suppose tthat it could hardly refute its own insurer's decision!

Otherwise, no- only a Court has compulsory jurisdiction to hold that the property is uninhabitable.

[attilathelandlord]

Why not get Environmental Health in, they'll soon say whether it's uninhabitable or not and will get on the landlord's case to get it sorted.

[Ericthelobster]

Assuming the only work which needs doing is putting up new plasterboard and skimming, which is what it sounds like (ie, there's no structural damage as Rodent alluded to) then this really isn't a mammoth job; it would certainly be complete within a working day (with decorating do be done later, once the plaster had dried out) and would cost a few hundred quid.

I imagine the insurers are dragging their heels, but I would have thought this should have been signed off PDQ, as it would say if there was a hole in the roof.

If there was any hint of a delay in doing the repair, I would have thought the obvious thing for someone to do would have been simply to staple large sheets of polythene sheeting to the underside of the exposed joists - that would have completely contained the dust problem, at least. (And, I suspect, changed the status from 'uninhabitable' to 'habitable'?)

[sunnysan]

I have an update on my situation. I wish I could say I was living happily ever after in my flat with a new ceiling but alas its not to be.

After much emailing of photos etc, the insurance company revised their opinion and agreed to to pay out for a hotel for the duration of the repairs to the roof.

The repairs (with waiting for insurance etc) took 36 days and although they have replastered the ceiling, they have not replaced the coving where it came down.

Now this on its own was no big problem, but while the ceiling was being repaired I insisted on an electrical safety inspection as I had found suspect wiring under the bath.

It turns out, the fuse box does not comply to building regs, the makeshift lighting system on the mezzamine has no continuity, and the central ceiling light has been removed during repairs(We have been asking for this to be fixed since the start of the tenancy) and we have poorly insulated live wires running underneath our bath which turned out to be part of the wiring for the flat below.

We also have no TRV on the heating unit in this room(Also meant to be fixed when the tenancy commenced) so although there is a central control we cannot adjust the unit and it gets tepid at best.

In addition to this the oven has packed up so we cannot use that.

Now I am a reasonable man, but after fighting to get rehoused for the duration of the repairs as there was so much dust, having everythign I own covered in dust and spending 36 days living out of pags in hotels , I return to my flat to find that my requests to fix the electrical problems have been ignored, I have a wire hanging from the central ceiling where the light should be, the coving is not replaced, the heating doesnt work properly and the oven has died.

At this point I am so incensed I have sent the landlord a notice that I wish to terminate the contract.

From a legal perspective it states clearly in the contract the landlords obligation to maintain the electrics according to the current acts as well as a clause saying that id the property is not made habitable within 30 days either party can terminate the contract with immediate effect.

I waited longer than the allotted time in good faith but the flat is basically in worse shape than before so I wish to exercise this clause with the lack of maintenance being contributory factors to my decision to attempt to terminate.

I have written a formal notice to the landlord stating my reasoning and intentions and I am hoping to come to an amicable solution, however I have sought legal advice and it is maintained I have grounds for termination.

I am essentially a reasonable man being caught between very unscrupulous and ineffective managing agents (F*****s) and a landlord who is indifferent.

My question to landlords here is do you think I am being unreasonable and IYO do I have sufficuent grounds for termination?

Many thanks for reading

[jeffrey]

A. Why not ask Local Authority to inspect and advise?
B. This might lead to house being statutorily declared uninhabitable.
C. The mere likelihood of an inspection might jerk L into action.

[sunnysan]

A. Why not ask Local Authority to inspect and advise?
B. This might lead to house being statutorily declared uninhabitable.
C. The mere likelihood of an inspection might jerk L into action.

A: I have had an inspection by the local authority and that was the only reason why the agreed to have the electrical safety check. In between the time of posting the LA rep actually phoned me and asked for an update on the repairs, so I said the inspection was carried out but no work has been done. His verdict about the ceiling was that it was a civil matter between myself and the landlord(At this stage it had been pulled down entirely so consituted no H&S threat, although becuase of debris etc even he said that was debatable).

B. I think that nothing I have stated no constitutes uninhabitablity, will see as this would be the magic bullet for my situation

C. This is the problem and why I have reached the end of my tether. The agents acting on behalf of the landlord have been stonewalling me and not carrying out repairs, are impossible to get hold of. As they represent the landlord I think they are keeping him at arms length as well.

[Gorillo]

My partner and I have just moved into a property and found out it has cockroaches. We have been at the property for less than a week and wish to terminate. Once we moved in we found cockroach killer spray in the cupboards. We contacted the agent and landlord and expressed our wishes to terminate. They responded by saying they were unaware of this and will treat the problem and will release us from the contract provided we pay agency fees for them to find alternative tenants and pay the rent in the meantime despite the fact we will not stay at the property as they are willing to treat the problem.

Our issue is that this is obviously an existing problem and had we been aware would never have taken on the contract for the property. Treating a cockroach infestation is not a simple process and will cause lots of upheaval, inconvenience, let alone distress. I personally don't believe it will be a straight forward process and am absolutely not willing to live with the constant fear of seeing them in my home and waiting for existing eggs to hatch or putting up with insecticide powder and/or traps throughout the property. We cooked nothing in the flat in fear the smell will attract them- We consider this to be uninhabitable and will impact on our quality of life- We do not believe we should be liable for any costs as we feel the property was misrepresented.

Where do we stand?

[mind the gap]

Where do we stand?

On a chair?

Seriously, although the thought of cockroaches in your home is no fun at all, I do think you are overreacting slightly.

I don't think you can end a tenancy almost as soon as it's begun, simply on the grounds that you weren't told there was a problem with cockroaches.You haven't even seen one yet, by the sound of it. You are assuming there is a problem on the basis of seeing one spray can. You need to get someone from Rentokil or similar in to tell you whether there is a problem or not. The agent might be telling you the truth; previous tenants might have resolved the problem themselves without involving agent. How do you know eradication will be a lengthy process? When I lived in Australia, a friend's mother's house was de-cockroached, but I don't remember it being that big a deal. The poison they put down is only a problem if you have pets or children.

If an expert establishes there is a problem, why not just ask the agent/LL for a clear schedule of when they plan to carry out the pest control work (it needs to be soon, obviously), and ask to be re-housed by them until property is clear.

If agent seems to be wasting time/doing nothing, tell them you will withold rent until the problem is sorted. Do this, but keep it in a separate account and if it takes them ages, negotiate a refund for affected period.

Good luck.

[Gorillo]

Thanks for your reply- I really appreciate.

We have seen cockroaches- we saw one inside the entrance on the first day and it was like a kick in the guts after the initial excitement of moving into our new home. We hoped it was a one off but then saw another 4 in a week- I have a phobia and genuinely scan the floors and walls every time I enter a room. We took photos of the 4 we managed to kill- one by dropping a phone directory on it- makes me cringe just thinking about it.

I know it's a lengthy process as I've checked a couple of websites to see how this is treated. We are not living in a hot climate where this is to be expected- I myself have lived in the Med where they are far more common place and have never seen 5 in a week before in a home. I genuinely can't live there but feel it is unreasonable to expect us to pay rent for somewhere with this problem- At best we would be willing to leave one month's rent to be able to walk away from this amicably but feel it unfair to expect us to pay until an alternative tenant is found- who would choose a property with cockroach traps and powder?

Any other suggestions?

[mind the gap]

Thanks for your reply- I really appreciate.

We have seen cockroaches- we saw one inside the entrance on the first day and it was like a kick in the guts after the initial excitement of moving into our new home. We hoped it was a one off but then saw another 4 in a week- I have a phobia and genuinely scan the floors and walls every time I enter a room. We took photos of the 4 we managed to kill- one by dropping a phone directory on it- makes me cringe just thinking about it.

I know it's a lengthy process as I've checked a couple of websites to see how this is treated. We are not living in a hot climate where this is to be expected- I myself have lived in the Med where they are far more common place and have never seen 5 in a week before in a home. I genuinely can't live there but feel it is unreasonable to expect us to pay rent for somewhere with this problem- At best we would be willing to leave one month's rent to be able to walk away from this amicably but feel it unfair to expect us to pay until an alternative tenant is found- who would choose a property with cockroach traps and powder?

Any other suggestions?

OK, why not put it to agent/LL that you think it unreasonable to expect you to live there whilst the place is infested, and ask whether
a) they would accept one month's rent for early surrender of tenancy, or, if not,
b) they would be prepared to put you up elsewhere until roaches are eradicated, in which case, what arrangements they have made to have problem dealt with.

Keep careful written records/evidence of any communication about it.

Only if they ignore your requests might you have legitimate grounds to leave and break the contract - but you may have to justify your decision in court, if they sue you for breach of contract. Whether a judge is sympathetic may hinge on how much (or little) chance you gave the LL to sort it out, before you moved out.

The fact that they offered you the chance to go (but at what some people may consider an unreasonable price) would also be taken into account.

Perhaps one of the lawyers on this forum would clarify your legal position?

In the meantime, I am told that the heel of a hiking boot is more efficacious than a phone book!

[inaspotofbother]

Hi

I have a flat that has suffered a burst pipe which has resulted in my having to take my bathroom apart to fix it. Except, this makes my flat uninhabitable at the moment. Have had to put my tenant in alternative accomodation. Works are now expected to take a while as the leak caused a lot of damage. How can I terminate the tenancy? have a 12 months contract, no break clause and we are nine months in!!
help!!!

[mind the gap]

Hi

I have a flat that has suffered a burst pipe which has resulted in my having to take my bathroom apart to fix it. Except, this makes my flat uninhabitable at the moment. Have had to put my tenant in alternative accomodation. Works are now expected to take a while as the leak caused a lot of damage. How can I terminate the tenancy? have a 12 months contract, no break clause and we are nine months in!!
help!!!


Does your LL's insurance not cover losses resulting from the property being rendered uninhabitable?

[Gmick]

Let's get this right? You're property is unhabitable, you've moved the tenant into temp accommodation and now you want to end the tenancy?

Why?

To save money? Avoid your responsibilities?

[jeffrey]

Hi

I have a flat that has suffered a burst pipe which has resulted in my having to take my bathroom apart to fix it. Except, this makes my flat uninhabitable at the moment. Have had to put my tenant in alternative accomodation. Works are now expected to take a while as the leak caused a lot of damage. How can I terminate the tenancy? have a 12 months contract, no break clause and we are nine months in!!
help!!!
Does your property insurance not cover loss of rent and/or alternative accommodation when the property is uninhabitable?

[Bel]

Let's get this right? You're property is unhabitable, you've moved the tenant into temp accommodation and now you want to end the tenancy?

Why?

To save money? Avoid your responsibilities?


It is not the LL's responsibility to rehouse the tenant.

They can simply stop charging rent if it is unfit to live in and tenant can use rent money for somewhere else to live.

[Preston]

Hi

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that unless the agreement includes some kind of "force majeure" clause (which I think is very rare in a residential context) or the landlord can argue that the contract has been fundamentally frustrated by the effective disappearance of the property (which doesnt seem to have happened in this case) then the landlord does indeed have an obligation to provide the tenant with quiet enjoyment during the period of the tenancy - i.e. with a home.

The normal situation is for the tenant to remain the tenant of the original property, to be temporarily rehoused elsewhere whilst the repair works are being completed (hopefully financed through insurance) and then to move back in once the works are completed. Technically - and for the purposes of the occupancy condition - they will have been in occupation throughout, all other things being equal.

Preston

[Bel]

Hi

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that unless the agreement includes some kind of "force majeure" clause (which I think is very rare in a residential context) or the landlord can argue that the contract has been fundamentally frustrated by the effective disappearance of the property (which doesnt seem to have happened in this case) then the landlord does indeed have an obligation to provide the tenant with quiet enjoyment during the period of the tenancy - i.e. with a home.

The normal situation is for the tenant to remain the tenant of the original property, to be temporarily rehoused elsewhere whilst the repair works are being completed (hopefully financed through insurance) and then to move back in once the works are completed. Technically - and for the purposes of the occupancy condition - they will have been in occupation throughout, all other things being equal.

Preston

I can see the reason of your interpretation here, and if there is insurance than it should be used to the full, but I would like to open up the debate.

To my mind a LL agrees to let the tenant a particular property, not a home; he is not a social worker if something happens that his not his fault. The tenant should not loose out (eg they could get all rent refunded while out), but why should Landlord lose out paying more than rent received for alternative accomodation?

[jeffrey]

To my mind a LL agrees to let the tenant a particular property, not a home
Please reconcile this view with s.1(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988- that the let property be used by T "as his only or principal home".

[Bel]

Please reconcile this view with s.1(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988- that the let property be used by T "as his only or principal home".

What this part of the act says does not bind the landlord; it is only what is required of T to qualify for an assured tenancy. The tenant is free to stay anywhere he choses.

What I originally meant was the Landlord lets property A to be the tenants home, but if property A needs repair and is uninhabitable, landlord has not contracted to keep tenant housed.

[Preston]

What I originally meant was the Landlord lets property A to be the tenants home, but if property A needs repair and is uninhabitable, landlord has not contracted to keep tenant housed.

Hi

If this were true, life would be much simpler for some landlords.

As I understand it, a tenancy is an interest in land - a form of tenure or ownership - albeit a short lived one. The circumstances under which a tenant can be deprived of the right to occupy the land are strictly limited and I dont think that disrepair is one of them.

If it were, it would be easy for landlords to frustrate contracts simply by allowing premises to fall into disrepair wouldnt it?

Preston

[Bel]

Hi

If this were true, life would be much simpler for some landlords.

As I understand it, a tenancy is an interest in land - a form of tenure or ownership - albeit a short lived one. The circumstances under which a tenant can be deprived of the right to occupy the land are strictly limited and I dont think that disrepair is one of them.

If it were, it would be easy for landlords to frustrate contracts simply by allowing premises to fall into disrepair wouldnt it?

Preston

I believe that the LL should repair swiftly or risk being in breach of the Protection from Eviction Act. I totally agree that LL should not be able to use disrepair as an eviction mechanism. What I am trying to ascertain is what the LL's responsibility in law would be if the repair genuinely means that the tenant needs temporary accommodation.


What I am asking is if a LL should be expected to 'provide temporary accommodation' where a property has been made temporarily uninhabitable in a genuine circumstance of disrepair due to no fault of either LL or T.

Would people expect the LL to provide accomodation if it costs more then the rent, leaving him out of pocket?

Of course in the real world there are many different circumstances in which different arrangements might be made, which would suit both LL and T.

I just would like to hear what legal arguments can be made about the responsibility for organising and paying for temporary accomodation; for and against the landlord.

[Preston]

I just would like to hear what legal arguments can be made about the responsibility for organising and paying for temporary accomodation; for and against the landlord.

Hi

The key statutory basis for landlords' repairing obligations is section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

11 Repairing obligations in short leases(1)In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor—
(a)to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes),
(b)to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity), and
(c)to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.

...

(2)The covenant implied by subsection (1) (“the lessor’s repairing covenant”) shall not be construed as requiring the lessor—
(a)to carry out works or repairs for which the lessee is liable by virtue of his duty to use the premises in a tenant-like manner, or would be so liable but for an express covenant on his part,
(b)to rebuild or reinstate the premises in the case of destruction or damage by fire, or by tempest, flood or other inevitable accident, or
(c)to keep in repair or maintain anything which the lessee is entitled to remove from the dwelling-house.
(3)In determining the standard of repair required by the lessor’s repairing covenant, regard shall be had to the age, character and prospective life of the dwelling-house and the locality in which it is situated.

I know you are not saying that this is what you would want to do, but if a landlord wanted to avoid doing the repairs, he or she would need to argue that 2(b) applies. From the information provided at the start of this thread, this does not apply in this case.


So, assuming that the repairing obligation exists, the case law seems relatively clear that tenants are entitled for various costs to be covered, including the cost of any consequential redecoration and the expenses incurred in obtaining alternative accommodation during the works, if this was necessary. See for example, Calabar Properties Ltd v Stitcher [1984] 1 WLR 287, 11 HLR 20, CA. In this case, the Court of Appeal reviewed a very old case (Green v Eales) which had implied that alternative accommodation could not be claimed for, deciding instead that there is no principle that the costs of alternative accommmodation cannot be claimed.

I guess a landlord could argue that a tenant should remain in occupation no matter how disruptive or inconvenient the repairs, but if they do so, they then risk a claim (perhaps much bigger than would otherwise have been the case) for damages based on loss of quiet enjoyment, discomfort, etc.

For all these reasons, most landlords take the view outlined in my earlier post. In other words, they make a reasonable assessment as to whether alternative accommodation is required during the works and if they are, they foot the bill, hopefully covering this with their insurance.

Hope this makes sense.

Preston

[juliet]

My son was living in an AST flat and this became uninhabitable due to an accidental fire. Is my son liable for rent during the time it was uninhabitable?

[P.Pilcher]

No - He shouldn't be.

P.P.

[jeffrey]

No - He shouldn't be.
I agree. Most ASTs contain a rent suspension clause.