Advice Needed, Flooded Out Of Rental Property

Wings

princeofpounds wrote: »

Re-reading your post, it may be that the condition IS so bad the tenancy is frustrated if it will really take months to fix (Is a drying-out property uninhabitable? I don't know but environmental health can express an opinion). If the LL and T agree to surrender the tenancy with no further liability from either side then you can move on (best get it in writing!).

Also forgot to mention, her contents are her own business most likely, the landlord is only responsible for the building. However if there has been active negligence on the part of whoever is responsible for upstairs then you could look at suing them for these costs. Keep records if you think you might!

Who pays the rent, Council's Housing so they will stop any further payments, arrange alternative housing, furnishings, clothing allowance etc. etc. The OP's daughter needs to estimate her financial losses etc., taking photographic evidence of the same. Remember that Housing pay rent 4 weeks in arrears. Local Council's Housing and Environmental Health offices have emergency teams on standby, so rather than wait for action from LL contact the Council.

princeofpounds

Council's Housing so they will stop any further payments, arrange alternative housing, furnishings, clothing allowance etc. etc. The OP's daughter needs to estimate her financial losses etc., taking photographic evidence of the same. Remember that Housing pay rent 4 weeks in arrears. Local Council's Housing and Environmental Health offices have emergency teams on standby, so rather than wait for action from LL contact the Council.

I think you are confusing council housing with housing the private rental sector paid for by the council. They are very different things.

Firstly, it is NOT the council's housing. They have no responsibility as landlords for the tenant. They have no responsibility for the property or its contents.

Secondly the council may not stop payments. The tenancy still exists as long as the contract is not frustrated, the benefit is still due.

However, the council almost certainly will help. Because they do have obligations to ensure that either the house is repaired to meet HHSRS standards, or if we accept that the property is uninhabitable they also have a duty to provide housing to someone who is unintentionally homeless (as the OP is unless the landlord provides a suitable alternative). They may also have emergency funds in the shape of grants and loans which will help with important items.

So whilst the council will be helpful, it's important to realise precisely what their obligations to help are and where they derive from - they don't just have a nebulous responsibility to look after someone.

Wings

princeofpounds wrote: »

I think you are confusing council housing with housing the private rental sector paid for by the council. They are very different things.

Firstly, it is NOT the council's housing. They have no responsibility as landlords for the tenant. They have no responsibility for the property or its contents.

Secondly the council may not stop payments. The tenancy still exists as long as the contract is not frustrated, the benefit is still due.

However, the council almost certainly will help. Because they do have obligations to ensure that either the house is repaired to meet HHSRS standards, or if we accept that the property is uninhabitable they also have a duty to provide housing to someone who is unintentionally homeless (as the OP is unless the landlord provides a suitable alternative). They may also have emergency funds in the shape of grants and loans which will help with important items.

So whilst the council will be helpful, it's important to realise precisely what their obligations to help are and where they derive from - they don't just have a nebulous responsibility to look after someone.

I have several properties let to people claiming Housing Benefits, i also deal on a regular basis with local Council Housing department, staff. I am also well aware of the LL's legal responsibility, and the OP's local Council's Housing, Environmental Health & Legal departments will enforce any action against the LL.

G_M

The concept of 'frustration' means that the tenancy is ended because it is impossible to continue it. However the discussion on Landlordzone here makes it clear that
a) it very rarely if ever happens and
b) it would happen only if the property were permenantly destroyed (or uninhabitable for a 'long' period of time in relation to to the length of the tenancy).

So 'frustration' is not relevant here.

So tenancy continues. Rent should continue to be paid by tenant (or via HB if appropriate) and accommodation should be provided in return by landlord. Landlord's insurance if it exists may well cover extra cost of rehousing, if not, well, LL learns a harsh lesson on insurance.

Tenant's contents are the tenant's responsibility. Tenant can claim on their insurance if any, if not, well, tenant learns a harsh lesson on insurance.

princeofpounds

So 'frustration' is not relevant here.

That was what I originally thought, but the OP mentioned the place having to dry out for months. Depending on what that means, it might be severe enough as the tenancy is probably only a 6 or 12 month one, we just don't have the info to know.

G_M

princeofpounds wrote: »

That was what I originally thought, but the OP mentioned the place having to dry out for months. Depending on what that means, it might be severe enough as the tenancy is probably only a 6 or 12 month one, we just don't have the info to know.

Correct. But frustration is notoriously rare and notoriously difficult, as the thread I quoted, and others on Landlordzone, show.

clutton_2

Landlords also have duties of care under Health and Safety Legislation and expecting a family to live in a water saturated property is definitely against the spirit , if not the letter, of H&S legislation..... LL defo has a duty of care to re-house and environmental h ealth can and should force him to do so.

confusedami_2

Update:

Sister has contacted Council's homeless emergency dept. today who have informed her that she is not considered as homeless as LL says she can move back into property (no she couldn't as every room is saturated and all walls and floors are soaking wet). They did however contact LL on her behalf and have arranged with him to repay her deposit and this month's rent. Surprised to say the least. She will now have to find alternative accommodation and will still have to replace all furniture etc. (expensive lesson learnt I think)

Hump

She is homeless if it isn't reasonable for her to occupy the property - sounds like the council avoiding their legal obligation OR the 'emergency' duty officer being a bit lazy. At the very least they should be persuading the landlord to accommodate her whilst repairs are carried out - they certainly shouldn't be manufacturing a homeless situation by getting the tenancy ended unless they are offering her somewhere else to live. As others have said the landlord's insurance should normally cover the cost of the alternative accommodation. The council officer and the landlord aren't related are they?

confusedami_2

No, I know the info given to her today is not correct. I will be speaking to them tomorrow. The LL has provided a letter stating the tenancy has ended as the property is uninhabitable so don't understand how getting your deposit back in this situation makes you no longer homeless. The LL by giving her back this months rent has, as far as he is concerned, has given her the means to find alternative accommodation. He wants and will have nothing more to do with it but has suggested that he contact her in 3-4 months when it should all be sorted out and she could move back in!

Thanks for all of the advice so far.