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

tim123456789

elbow42 wrote: »

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.

Why should the LL need insurance for this?

He pays for it out of the rent that you are paying. He can't argue that he uses this money to cover the rent on the empty property because he won't be getting that if he evicts you.

He gets one lot of rent - he provides one property. The fact that he has an additional, empty, flooded property has no impact on the solution.

dimbo61

If the Landlord has no 'landlord insurance' he/she is an idiot.
Most if not all Landlord Insurance covers for this so he/she should pay for rehousing you while repairs are carried out.
Now if he/she is willing to PAY YOU compensation for being unable to provide you with somewhere else to live.!!!!

tim123456789

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Most tenants aren't in the position of being able to rustle up alternative accommodation on zero notice.

Even if they are willing to move immediately the rest of the process will stop them.

But if a LL goes to his agent and says that I have to find alternative, short term accommodation for one of my tenants in a hurry and it is me (the LL) paying the rent, then most of the obstructions to doing this will disappear.

G_M

The insurance is a red herring.

If I go on holiday and choose not to take out travel insurance, and then I get robbed, sick, delayed etc, then I save myself the insurance premium, but have to bear the cost/loss of the disaster myself.

In this case, the LL chose not to pay the insurance premium, so he must bear the costs himself.

Yes, the LL could get a court order and force you out. But in court, you would make a counter-claim for all your costs (assuming the LL is not re-housing you), based on breach of contract.

For this to work, you will have to continue to pay the rent agreed, but the LL must provide you a home in return. If this is a hotel, and costs the LL more than the rent he is receiving from you, that is his problem (and the reason he should have had insurance!).

However, far better to avoid the courts.

Communicate.

Agree to move, if the LL will agree to re-house/compensate.



Warning: there is an outside chance the LL could claim the contract is 'frustrated'. This applies where, for reasons that are outside the control of either side, the contract cannot be fulfilled.eg a flood!

However, 'frustration' applies where the contract is totally impossible. If the contract was for 6 months, and the repairs were going to take 12 months (eg a fire had totally destroyed the house), then frustration would apply since the LL could notprovide the property during thelife of the contract.

In thiscase, the contract is 12months, and the drying out period is 3months, so the property can be provided again during the life of the contract - therefore no frustration.

Thrugelmir

tim123456789 wrote: »

Most tenants aren't in the position of being able to rustle up alternative accommodation on zero notice.

Agreed. However the sooner the repair is undertaken. The quicker that the status quo can be restored.

losgiganteskid

Surely its down to the wording of the tenancy agreement as to whether or not alternative accommodation is provided to a tenant where the rented property suffers damage where the tenant has to vacate for repairs to be carried out.

The tenancy wording i've seen merely states that the landlord will rent to the Tenant (me) a specific property (example) 34, Oil Drum Lane - if that property suffers a severe fire or flood and is unhabitable there is no provision in the tenancy for the Landlord to provided me with alternative accommodation whether or not he (the landlord) has insurance to cover this or not.

The website www.thelandlordsguild.com seems to confirm this !!

ifonlyitwaseasier

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Surely its down to the wording of the tenancy agreement as to whether or not alternative accommodation is provided to a tenant where the rented property suffers damage where the tenant has to vacate for repairs to be carried out.

The tenancy wording i've seen merely states that the landlord will rent to the Tenant (me) a specific property (example) 34, Oil Drum Lane - if that property suffers a severe fire or flood and is unhabitable there is no provision in the tenancy for the Landlord to provided me with alternative accommodation whether or not he (the landlord) has insurance to cover this or not.

The website www.thelandlordsguild.com seems to confirm this !!

the contract can say that the tenant can't keep flying monkeys but that doesn't make it legal.

Guest101

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

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

What?! Just go away and never come back, clearly you know nothing.

G_M

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Surely its down to the wording of the tenancy agreement as to whether or not alternative accommodation is provided to a tenant where the rented property suffers damage where the tenant has to vacate for repairs to be carried out.

....The website www.thelandlordsguild.com seems to confirm this !!

No.

Whatever clauses are or aren't added tothe contract does not alter the fundamental basis of the contract: rent in return for accomodation. And that accomodation must be habitable (Housing Act/LL & Tenant Act).

As 'ifonlyitwasthateasy' says, a LL can put any old clause they want in a contract (flying monkeys, no cooking after 5.00 pm, whatever) but those clauses would not necessarily be valid/enforcible.

'Frustration' of the contract is the LL's only way to actually cancel/negate the obligation to accomodate the tenant (see my post above).

As for the link: it does not work. Please either quote the wording provided by the Guild or a working link to the relevant page on their site, or better still, both!

losgiganteskid

G_M wrote: »

As for the link: it does not work. Please either quote the wording provided by the Guild or a working link to the relevant page on their site, or better still, both!

try this link

https://www.landlordsguild.com/house-destroyed-by-fire-or-flood/