Insurance and repair

[brassmonkey]

Hi

I'm trying to establish who is responsible for the damage to the property caused by a burst pipe leak. This affected residential tenant and was reported to have come through the commercial part of the property. The pipe has been fixed and no further water leak. We are in process of submitting a claim to sort out the flat though we have yet to determine whether any significant damage to the commercial unit as agent haven't been in yet. The insurance premium was paid proportionally between landlord and commercial tenant so if there is damage to this area requiring repairs are we able to get commercial tenant to pay some of the excess as well? (can't seem to find this in the lease but the percentage of tenants proportion is stated)

Also what does this mean:

Landlords covenant for repair
Without prejudice to its obligations under clause 8 (insurance) the landlord shall not be obliged to carry out repair where the need for any repair has arisen by reason of the occurence of an insured risk.

To add to the already stressful situation turns out that agent will not deal with insurance unless we pay additional fee which I would have thought was included as part of the management service. Is this common practice? :mad:

Any help is greatly appreciated

[leaseholdanswers]

Subject to any particular wording in the lease, the excess is a landlords expense which may be recoverable under the service charge under the lease- see service charge schedule or clauses. Normally if insurance is recoverable the excess which is just an implicit part of the cost of insuring,is recoverable unless the lease excludes it.

The use of an agent may be the choice of the landlord but again their costs can only be included if the service charge allows.

Depending on the cause of the leak and who is responsible for it, and the pipe, an act or omission of negligance or a breach of the repair covenant, might mean the cost and damages are borne by that person. Your clasue means that if an insured risk exists, the landlord is not obligated to repair. It is a very odd clause; its intent was to avoid the landlord being bogged down in small claims, but has the effect of absolving him of dealing with major matters, and leaving a void as to who deals with an issue such as landlords structure if the landlord does not wish to. All very well with a diligent landlord.....

Not a clause I would sign off on!

[brassmonkey]

Theres no service charge for the property but there is a clause that says 'Tenant shall pay landlord on demand a fair proportion of the costs incurred by the Lanldord in keeping the structure and exterior of the Building and service media belonging to the landlord at it in good repair' - assuming for normal disrepair issues but then goes onto saying '... the tenant shall not be obliged to carry out repair where the need for any repair has arisen by reason of the occurence of an insured risk' - which as you say leaves a big question mark over who should deal with the problem. Things are getting sorted out now but ambiguous indeed!

Thank you for the reply - much appreciated

[jeffrey]

Theres no service charge for the property but there is a clause that says 'Tenant shall pay landlord on demand a fair proportion of the costs incurred by the Lanldord in keeping the structure and exterior of the Building and service media belonging to the landlord at it in good repair' - assuming for normal disrepair issues but then goes onto saying '... the tenant shall not be obliged to carry out repair where the need for any repair has arisen by reason of the occurence of an insured risk' - which as you say leaves a big question mark over who should deal with the problem.
That clause does, effectively, connote a service charge. Look for what obligations L actually covenants to undertake, however.