Irresponsible Tenant

clutton_2

""Out of interest, and I wonder if Dark Blue/tbs know, is this a fair contract term- not to "leave the property unattended for 30 days"

"does this not mean that the LL is telling T when they can and cannot go on extended holiday/go overseas with work for a few weeks etc?? What is the potential upshot legally if a tenant does go away for 30 days?

Can anyone tell me is this a common terms in AST? "



As a LL - yes this is a common term, as many BTL insurance policies reduce their cover significantly after a vacant period of 30 days..... so it is very relevant and i would hope enforceable.....

it is not about a LL being nosey as to a tenants lifestyle, it is about his legal duty to comply with the terms of the insurers policy..... and about the tenant acting in a "tenant like manner" to enable either the tenant or the LL to prevent any deterioration in the property if it is left empty....

some policies insist that someone visit the property at a particular weekly frequency after a 30 day void


Re Claiming on insurance.... if it is found to be tenant damage (or tenant associates' damage and which people are there with the permission of the tenant) EACH item will be classed as a separate claim, and so each item will accrue an excess (often £1000 on BTL policies)


Re expensive coffee table... does this matter if it was cheap or expensive ? If it is itemised in the inventory - it was there.. and needs repair or replacement... If the LL can show a receipt for its purchase.. then a % reduction on its value can be sensibly worked out for a wear and tear deduction.... and the LL can then buy a slightly cheaper coffee table next time.....

is this property in Scotland ?

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

....many BTL insurance policies reduce their cover significantly after a vacant period of 30 days..... so it is very relevant and i would hope enforceable.....

it is not about a LL being nosey as to a tenants lifestyle, it is about his legal duty to comply with the terms of the insurers policy

However, as I previously mentioned, if a LL wishes a T to comply with terms of the LLs insurance policy then it is incumbent upon the LL to provide the T with a full copy of the insurance policy in question.

lynzpower

tbs624 wrote: »

However, as I previously mentioned, if a LL wishes a T to comply with terms of the LLs insurance policy then it is incumbent upon the LL to provide the T with a full copy of the insurance policy in question.

Out of further interest then:

If a T was to sign a AST at a letting agent and this is a standard term in the AST ( im not sure if it is, might be at some LAs for example)

the T signs it

The T moves in

the T has not been given a copy of the insurance document prior to signing the AST

then the T cant have agreed to this

And trying to apply it without giving the T terms and conditions of the insurance PRIOR to signing the AST- cant be held to this afterwards?

bitsandpieces

clutton wrote: »

Re expensive coffee table... does this matter if it was cheap or expensive ? If it is itemised in the inventory - it was there.. and needs repair or replacement... If the LL can show a receipt for its purchase.. then a % reduction on its value can be sensibly worked out for a wear and tear deduction.... and the LL can then buy a slightly cheaper coffee table next time.....

Though given that coffee table alone will exceed the deposit in value (not to mention other damage) and LL has insurance, claiming on the insurance would seem more sensible. Of course, it's up to LL what they do - if they do go the small claims route I'd be interested to hear how much money they end up with.

clutton_2

i cannot comment on the sense in providing such expensive furniture..... i also would be interested in a courts judgement...