plz help out of mind with worry about getting sued

Wickedkitten

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Let's get back to the facts. You don't know the house was damp, nor do you know that the damp caused or even contributed to the tenant's respiratory infection.

There was an area of black mould in the bedroom but that was due to her not opening the windows other than that there was no damp in the bedroom as said in the solicitors letter,

To the OP, if there is an area of black mould in the bedroom then how could the bedroom possibly not be damp?

she had also defrosted the fridge and the freezer and let the water drip all into the kitchen which has lifted the floor tiles and seeped into the living room area which has now black mould all over

What did you use to get rid of the mould before trying to let it out again?

tbs624

Some posters seem to be making massive assumptions here: many LLs will tell you that you can let a property to one set of tenants and everything will be fine, another set go in and within a short time there is black mould appearing.

Yes, some properties become damp due to the LL's failure to address repairing obligations, sometimes it can be a combination of that plus a T's failure to ventilate/heat the property adequately, the T's habits of steaming wet washing off indoors etc.

The OP mentions that it appears that T had been trying to grow an "illegal substance" in a walk in wardrobe in one of the bedrooms. Let's assume we're talking marijuana here - if you are growing that stuff it is highly likely that there will be black mould appearing in the room.

This may be a case of a LL with a shoddy property who is trying to squirm out of her responsibilities or it may be a case of one of those Ts who knows how to run rings round inexperienced LLs, or it may be a combination of the two.

As Firefox says, you can't simply assume that if someone develops pneumonia it must be down to the LL or their property, without taking all other possibilities into consideration. A damp property would certainly exacerbate respiratory illnesses but so would puffing away on ciggies and dope and, as stated, the damp may have been caused/contributed to by the Ts own action.


A LL has to address damp issues if reported ( not least because of the HHSRS - Housing Heath & Safety Rating System) but I reckon that a T who is doing a spot of illicit horticulture is unlikely to report problems with damp, as the LL would (hopefully) want to inspect the property.

Wickedkitten

tbs624 wrote: »

Some posters seem to be making massive assumptions here: many LLs will tell you that you can let a property to one set of tenants and everything will be fine, another set go in and within a short time there is black mould appearing.

Yes, some properties become damp due to the LL's failure to address repairing obligations, sometimes it can be a combination of that plus a T's failure to ventilate/heat the property adequately, the T's habits of steaming wet washing off indoors etc.

The OP mentions that it appears that T had been trying to grow an "illegal substance" in a walk in wardrobe in one of the bedrooms. Let's assume we're talking marijuana here - if you are growing that stuff it is highly likely that there will be black mould appearing in the room.

This may be a case of a LL with a shoddy property who is trying to squirm out of her responsibilities or it may be a case of one of those Ts who knows how to run rings round inexperienced LLs, or it may be a combination of the two.

As Firefox says, you can't simply assume that if someone develops pneumonia it must be down to the LL or their property, without taking all other possibilities into consideration. A damp property would certainly exacerbate respiratory illnesses but so would puffing away on ciggies and dope and, as stated, the damp may have been caused/contributed to by the Ts own action.


A LL has to address damp issues if reported ( not least because of the HHSRS - Housing Heath & Safety Rating System) but I reckon that a T who is doing a spot of illicit horticulture is unlikely to report problems with damp, as the LL would (hopefully) want to inspect the property.

I'm not making any assumptions. Regardless of how the damp got there, I'm asking because there is already black mould in there, and unless its taken care of properly, the next tenants could well have massive issues.

GDB2222

As usual, listen to Silvercar, who is very experienced in this field. The OP has two very strong points in her favour:

Although the tenants had a tenancy, they told the OP verbally that they were not returning, so they ended the tenancy. Acting on that the OP reentered the property in good faith. Based on that, there is (virtually) zero chance of the Police taking action for harrassment and a civil case for that is not going anywhere.

On damp: Clearly, growing illegal substances requires a warm damp atmosphere, which the tenant duly created by for example not opening the windows. Of course, that causes mould. The tenant has an obligation to use the property reasonably, and the OP has a strong case for a counter-claim.

I doubt that this will go anywhere, but the OP ought to seek legal advice so as to head it off now.

tbs624

GDB2222 wrote: »

As usual, listen to Silvercar, who is very experienced in this field. The OP has two very strong points in her favour:

Although the tenants had a tenancy, they told the OP verbally that they were not returning, so they ended the tenancy. ..

More assumptions?? The OP has not confirmed the circumstances under which she learned that the T was not returning:

In April I discovered she had been taken into hospital with pneumonia and was told that she would not be returning to the property..

GDB2222 wrote: »

Acting on that the OP reentered the property in good faith. Based on that, there is (virtually) zero chance of the Police taking action for harrassment and a civil case for that is not going anywhere.

If a LL is to repossess a property based on a T's apparent surrender/abandonment of the property, rather than on a Court Order, then they have to follow a specific procedure involving having a witness and providng notices about the LL offerring keys should the T return & want access, suggestions to the TT on where to get legal advice etc or the LL runs the very real risk of an action for illegal eviction, which is a criminal charge ( as is that of tenant harassment) Some will no doubt recall the case of the convicted rapist whose LL changed the locks and kindly stored his goods when he was sent to prison, only to find herself in court on a charge of unlawful eviction . She was found guilty and although she managed to have that overturned on appeal, she could have avoided that unnecessary stress by acting within the law from the start.

There has to be very clear evidence that the T unequivocally intended to abandon their tenancy, and that the LL acted appropriately in the circumstances: only a court can decide either of those matters for certain. LLs should always take legal advice/ aim for a court order *before* repossessing- in the OP's case she could have gone for a S8 GR 8, 10,11, 12, 13.

GDB2222 wrote: »

......the OP ought to seek legal advice so as to head it off now.

Agreed.

tbs624

Wickedkitten wrote: »

I'm not making any assumptions.

Although, my comment came after your post, it was not solely addressed to my interpretation of your comments: Artful, Geenie and the "troll" also seem to have taken a particular view of events without any of us having the full facts from the OP.

Wickedkitten wrote: »

IRegardless of how the damp got there, I'm asking because there is already black mould in there, and unless its taken care of properly, the next tenants could well have massive issues.

Thanks for clarifying - it's the usual thing with a forum - you know in your head the point that you are intending to convey but when your words are posted up it's perhaps less clear to another reader, who doesn't have access to what's in your thoughts ...

Geenie

tbs624 wrote: »

Although, my comment came after your post, it was not solely addressed to my interpretation of your comments: Artful, Geenie and the "troll" also seem to have taken a particular view of events without any of us having the full facts from the OP.
Thanks for clarifying - it's the usual thing with a forum - you know in your head the point that you are intending to convey but when your words are posted up it's perhaps less clear to another reader, who doesn't have access to what's in your thoughts ...

I wasn't trying to be unhelpful to the OP. I was commenting on the fact that there was mould in the place, which isn't a good sign. I apologise if my post came across as aggressive, as it wasn't intended that way. I also want to mention that it might be wise when letting a property to an unknown, to arrange inspections now and again, just to see how they are treating the place and make sure all the services are OK.

franklee

Doesn't landlord's insurance include legal cover for just this sort of case, surely at least a legal helpline and defence if sued? I'd have thought the risk of being sued by a tenant is always there just the same as the risk of fire or theft is always there. Isn't that exactly what insurance is for to cover the unlikely yet costly if they occur events?

Gwhiz

amersall wrote: »

how sad are you?? sitting and counting how many words in one sentence, you obviously have nothing better to do

Sad he may be but he's also right. I can't be bothered to read the post either due to it's lack of punctuation. If you want help on here then at least help yourself by making your posts legible!

GDB2222

tbs624 wrote: »

More assumptions?? The OP has not confirmed the circumstances under which she learned that the T was not returning:
If a LL is to repossess a property based on a T's apparent surrender/abandonment of the property, rather than on a Court Order, then they have to follow a specific procedure involving having a witness and providng notices about the LL offerring keys should the T return & want access, suggestions to the TT on where to get legal advice etc or the LL runs the very real risk of an action for illegal eviction, which is a criminal charge ( as is that of tenant harassment) Some will no doubt recall the case of the convicted rapist whose LL changed the locks and kindly stored his goods when he was sent to prison, only to find herself in court on a charge of unlawful eviction . She was found guilty and although she managed to have that overturned on appeal, she could have avoided that unnecessary stress by acting within the law from the start.

There has to be very clear evidence that the T unequivocally intended to abandon their tenancy, and that the LL acted appropriately in the circumstances: only a court can decide either of those matters for certain. LLs should always take legal advice/ aim for a court order *before* repossessing- in the OP's case she could have gone for a S8 GR 8, 10,11, 12, 13.

Agreed.

Yes, agreed - I assumed the tenant told the LL she was not returning, which I think you would agree would be sufficient, if that is indeed what happened. It's more difficult if the tenant simply abandons the property or if the LL hears from a third party that the tenant is not returning, in which case as you have said the LL needs to be very careful indeed.

Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the tenant will pursue the civil case, as the LL would simply counter-claim for her considerable losses, and there would be a strong argument that the tenants caused the mould.

Really, the LL needs to be more concerned about a possible criminal charge, but that would not benefit the tenant, so I wouldn't expect much to happen there, either.