Flood in house at start of new 12 month fixed term tenancy

elbow42

Hi all,

I'll keep this to the point as I'm angry and confused and it's easy to ramble on :mad:

We signed a 12 month fixed term tenancy agreement on 10th July and have been upholding our side of the contract. Recently we had a burst pipe underground - water everywhere. It was fixed quickly by the letting agent contractors.

Got a letter today - the landlord is kicking us out because their insurance company said they need all furniture/carpets/us out for at least 2-3 months for drying (two industrial dehumidifiers in each room for a long time then entirely re-plaster all walls etc). We had written notice today from the agency.

However in the letter we were told the landlord's insurance does not cover costs of us moving (admin fees, new tenancy costs, moving costs, taking time off work etc). My contents insurance does not cover this either.

I know they are meant to find alternative accommodation for us but realistically there is nothing in this small village available. I have 2 children and my oldest is mentally disabled and my youngest is starting a new school (we moved here for catchment back in Jan).

My question is this: Do I have a case to claim for moving costs/wasted time off work? I have no family to stay with and why should I be out of pocket for this early eviction?

What should I do?

Many thanks,

Lee

BitterAndTwisted

They can't evict you during your fixed-term, the landlord has to provide alternative accommodation for you if the property is uninhabitable. You could, of course, negotiate some form of compensation for your moving expenses in return for the landlord agreeing to a mutual surrender. Meanwhile tot up the cost of rehousing you in a local hotel.....

Your landlord's insurance situation is irrelevant.

dimbo61

The Landlord should have insurance which covers for rehousing you while work is carried out.
Just contact LA/LL and ask where are you rehousing me ?
You have a CONTRACT and if you said you were moving out early the LL/LA would be taking you to court for breaking the contract
Speak to CAB in the morning

Mr_Pitiful

There is no obligation on the landlord to provide alternative accommodation.

tim123456789

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

There is no obligation on the landlord to provide alternative accommodation.

really!

You're right, there's no obligation for the LL to provide alternative accommodation because the LL has no obligation to kick the Tenants out.

But if he does so, then he does have an obligation to provide an alternative because he has contracted to do so.

caeler

The CAB website says:

The tenant is asked to move out for repairs to the property
If your landlord wants to carry out improvements, they must either get your permission to enter the home and do the work, or get a court order authorising them to take possession of the home. This also applies if the repairs are so extensive that they cannot be done unless you move out. Your landlord may have to provide alternative accommodation for you. If you do not want to move, your landlord has the power, in some circumstances, to apply to the county court to repossess the property.
If your landlord wants you to leave so that improvements or repairs can be done, you should not agree to this until you has obtained independent advice on your rights, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau. To search for details of your nearest CAB, including those that can give advice by email, click on nearest CAB.

It sounds like this is a complicated situation so you need to get advice ASAP to make sure you are treated fairly and disruption to you and your family is minimised.

DaftyDuck

I am not one of the legal eagles on here, as I rent my properties out through a fully-managed agency that does things to a high standard. I'm only posting as it's late, and those that know may not post before tomorrow.

I have a very clear paragraph in my documentation that paraphrases the post by caeler, stating that I should be prepared to meet all reasonable costs should a property become uninhabitable, and this should not be necessarily limited to rehousing costs.

The Landlord's insurance status is utterly irrelevant.'If I choose to take out insurance (I do, through my agency), it costs me more, but I sleep better. If I don't, I might make more money, but it is my risk if I don't, not my tenants'.

Interestingly (possibly!), the University I rent to has a " must live within 3 miles" policy... and the agency warns me that I must rehouse any evictees within 3 miles, and must meet any such expense in doing so!

You need real legal advice from the CAB or a solicitor. In the meantime, do not move out, do not agree to anything. It is the LL's responsibility to sort this out, and personally, I wouldn't expect it to cost you ...

Mr_Pitiful

tim123456789 wrote: »

really!

You're right, there's no obligation for the LL to provide alternative accommodation because the LL has no obligation to kick the Tenants out.

But if he does so, then he does have an obligation to provide an alternative because he has contracted to do so.

If the landlord is fulfilling their s11 obligations they can obtain a court order to get the tenant to vacate, though this is only likely to happen if the works can't be completed with the tenant staying in the property, and there is still no obligation to provide alternative. The tenant can of course make a claim against the landlord for general and special damages to cover any costs of alternative accommodation, inconvenience etc.

If it can be carried out one room at a time there would be no need to leave, though that wouldn't seem possible in this case.

elbow42

Thanks everyone for your responses.

I had a meeting with someone at our local council offices. We went through the assured short-hold tenancy agreement and found no get out clause for the landlord. Was advised to contact Shelter as they would to take on this case, but the council would also help us. We are entitled to be 'decanted' to another property at the landlord's expense for the duration of the repairs, then move back in until the end of the fixed term. However, the landlord also has no 'landlord insurance' to cover for this, so it sounds like it's going to be difficult to claim for this.

Was also advised - if we do receive some sort of notice then we should pass it onto the council and they would get their prevention officer on the case as it may not be legal.

Bottom line was, we should not be out of pocket for this.

tim123456789

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

If the landlord is fulfilling their s11 obligations they can obtain a court order to get the tenant to vacate, .

well of course

but if the reason for eviction is (as here) because you need everything to dry out after a flood then the moving out requirement is today

not in 12 weeks time after notice has expired and the matter gone to court

Thrugelmir

tim123456789 wrote: »

not in 12 weeks time after notice has expired and the matter gone to court

Though the tenant would serve their own interests better if they were to act in a reasonable manner as well.