Renting - Who is responsible for rebuilding if fire?

Flowers12345

There is a part of my new Assured Shorthold Tenancy contract that concerns me, which is.....

However, we will not be responsible for:

rebuilding or reinstating the Property if it has been destroyed by fire, storm or flood or some inevitable
accident;


I was under the impression that when a landlord rents a property they take out building insurance to cover for this, as i have never had this in any of my previous contracts and have always just took out contents insurance.

Is this standard in contracts now? does this mean i should take out a buildings insurance or should this really be the landlords responsibility?

would be grateful for others opinions on this matter...

Thanks

00ec25

presumably you are the tenant rather than the LL?

It may be an attempt at referring to the principle of a "frustrated" contract - this means the contract is effectively voided because there is no property to rent (its been destroyed) so both the LL and T are free to go their separate ways...

by including such a clause in the contract it becomes a force majure clause since it is referring to the specific instances where the contract will become impossible to continue
see here: http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-frustration.html

Whether the LL has a duty to rehouse you in alternative accommodation whilst the property is rebuilt is another matter - certainly the LL insurance should have cover for that but depending on the policy it may not cover utter destruction, ie it covers temporary repairs not complete rebuild

sandsni

The landlord should have insurance, but maybe this clause is simply stating that he/she will not be under obligation to ACTUALLY rebuild the property and hence under no obligation to the tenant in the event that the property is destroyed. That's how I would read it, but I'm sure there are other posters with more experience who might read it differently.

DVardysShadow

'We' being the Landlord?

I think that the intent of the clause is that they will not undertake to rebuild the house and put you back in it as tenants. It does not as I see it, put that liability on you. But it is a very poor way of expressing the intent.

If you are not signed up, you should ask the Agent in writing for clarification as to the intent. If it is as I say, insist on the clarification in writing and keep it carefully with your tenancy papers. If the liability is intended to fall on you or written clarification is not forthcoming, walk away.

chris_m

It certainly is poorly written - "some inevitable accident"?
Are they saying, as that implies, that the are renting out a property which is or has an accident just waiting to happen?

Flowers12345

Thank you all so much for taking the time to reply, I really appreciate it and your advice has really helped. Yes my husband and I are the tenants, or will be I should say, we are due to move in and sign then contract in a couple of weeks but have been given a copy of the contract to check and read through. What you all suggest makes sense and I will definitely get in contact with the Landlord to confirm his intent before signing.

Thanks for putting my mind at ease as I was unsure who to turn to and ask, and didn’t want to get talked into a contract that would land us in a heap of trouble and thousands and thousands of pounds for rebuild. (saying that I would hope the property will not burn down!! – I just was preparing for worst case scenario)

Thanks

GDB2222

00ec25 wrote: »

presumably you are the tenant rather than the LL?

It may be an attempt at referring to the principle of a "frustrated" contract - this means the contract is effectively voided because there is no property to rent (its been destroyed) so both the LL and T are free to go their separate ways...

by including such a clause in the contract it becomes a force majure clause since it is referring to the specific instances where the contract will become impossible to continue
see here: http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-frustration.html

Whether the LL has a duty to rehouse you in alternative accommodation whilst the property is rebuilt is another matter - certainly the LL insurance should have cover for that but depending on the policy it may not cover utter destruction, ie it covers temporary repairs not complete rebuild

I had cause to seek legal advice on the issue of frustrated contracts recently. The advice I received was that there was not a great deal of case law on this, but it probably does apply (pretty much regardless of what the contract may say). In other words, the landlord gives the tenant any unexpired portion of the rent back plus his deposit, and they each go their separate way.

I did not need to go down that route, as I was able to rehouse the tenant. In practice, I think it is unlikely that the tenant would take the risk of staying in a hotel for weeks and then trying to get the money back from the landlord.

GDB2222

chris_m wrote: »

It certainly is poorly written - "some inevitable accident"?
Are they saying, as that implies, that the are renting out a property which is or has an accident just waiting to happen?

No, it is just finishing off the list with a catch-all phrase.