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

Mr_Pitiful

Guest101 wrote: »

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

Congratulations on the compelling argument countering what I wrote. Rather than being rude, how about directing me to the relevant legislation or case law which states that a landlord has an obligation to provide alternative accommodation?

G_M

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

Congratulations on the compelling argument countering what I wrote. Rather than being rude, how about directing me to the relevant legislation or case law which states that a landlord has an obligation to provide alternative accommodation?

It's basic contract law!

losgiganteskid

The more I look into this the more I believe Mr P is probably correct - see this interesting blurb http://www.letlink.co.uk/articles/disrepair/the-landlord-s-disrepair-duties.html

under Tenant Displacement the article states "..............the tenant for his part must not interfer with the performance of the repairs and has no right to be rehoused whilst the repairs are being undertaken.

although "..........IF the landlord is in breach of repairing obligations and because of this breach the property falls into such a state that the ntenant cannot live at the property the landlord will be liable for the cost of alternative accommodation" etc etc

losgiganteskid

G_M wrote: »

It's basic contract law!

please show the link so we can put this topic to bed so to speak

losgiganteskid

Guest101 wrote: »

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

In view of the links I have provided are you still sure about your statement - if so perhaps you would kindly show some link/s to indicate that my/a landlord will rehouse me in such circumstances

Mrs_pbradley936

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 !!

I am not an expert but I don't think a contract is legal if it tries to give you less rights than the law says you have.

My son had a problem with his landlord when he was at university and the housing people at the council said it was a "sham tenancy".

Guest101

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

Congratulations on the compelling argument countering what I wrote. Rather than being rude, how about directing me to the relevant legislation or case law which states that a landlord has an obligation to provide alternative accommodation?

Its simple, its called contract law, read up on it. I wasnt going to waste time on you, other than to compell others to ignore you're useless opinion. Based on some two-bit 'knowledge' of something you read on the back of a bus.

The tenant signs a contract with the LL to pay rent, in exchange for accomodation, the LL accepts this, accepts the rent, and provides accomodation.

He cannot unilaterally brek the contract, both parties must agree. Otherwise contracts would not be worth anything, ever, in any case.

Yes the LL can apply to the court to get possession, but the tenant at this point may counter sue for costs etc, which the LL would have to pay, as he is trying to terminate the contract, where the Tenant is not at fault.

I'm not sure if you're a troll, a bitter LL, or genuinely believe what your spouting - in any case you're wrong.

Guest101

losgiganteskid wrote: »

The more I look into this the more I believe Mr P is probably correct - see this interesting blurb http://www.letlink.co.uk/articles/disrepair/the-landlord-s-disrepair-duties.html

under Tenant Displacement the article states "..............the tenant for his part must not interfer with the performance of the repairs and has no right to be rehoused whilst the repairs are being undertaken.

although "..........IF the landlord is in breach of repairing obligations and because of this breach the property falls into such a state that the ntenant cannot live at the property the landlord will be liable for the cost of alternative accommodation" etc etc

Think it's quite clear that the second paragraph applies in this situation.

The first quote applies to minor repairs, which can be performed while the tenant is in situ, which the majority can be, but flood (amongst others) does leave the house uninhabitable, especially as the LL has told the tenant he must leave for the repairts to be effective.

Guest101

losgiganteskid wrote: »

In view of the links I have provided are you still sure about your statement - if so perhaps you would kindly show some link/s to indicate that my/a landlord will rehouse me in such circumstances

You're links aren't clear, since i dont get exactly what you're saying.

Are you saying that the LL can evict the tenant, breach the contract with impunity, and the tenant must just accept, because the LL must carry out repairs under s.11

You need to read Ground 6 & 9, in your own link.

Ground 6 does allow possession with no alternate accomodation, however requires 2 months notice and reasonable moving expenses.

And ground 9 does require lternate accomodation to be provided.

So im confused as to what i need to provide?

Mr_Pitiful

Guest101 wrote: »

Its simple, its called contract law, read up on it. I wasnt going to waste time on you, other than to compell others to ignore you're useless opinion. Based on some two-bit 'knowledge' of something you read on the back of a bus.

The tenant signs a contract with the LL to pay rent, in exchange for accomodation, the LL accepts this, accepts the rent, and provides accomodation.

He cannot unilaterally brek the contract, both parties must agree. Otherwise contracts would not be worth anything, ever, in any case.

Yes the LL can apply to the court to get possession, but the tenant at this point may counter sue for costs etc, which the LL would have to pay, as he is trying to terminate the contract, where the Tenant is not at fault.

I'm not sure if you're a troll, a bitter LL, or genuinely believe what your spouting - in any case you're wrong.

But the contract is for that specific property, with the tenancy granting the tenant a legal interest in that property. Yes, the landlord is contractually obliged to provide the accommodation for the length of that tenancy.

However if disrepair means that it's not possible for the tenant to stay in the property whilst it's being fixed, the tenant will have to leave either voluntarily or because the landlord obtains a court order.

So the landlord will not have fulfilled their part of the contract, therefore the tenant can claim for associated costs including that of alternative accommodation for the breach of contract, though this isn't the same as the landlord providing that accommodation.

My view is supported by Shelter, specifically in their 'Getting repairs done' leaflet. I would hope that as a charity which advises on the rights of a tenant, they would get something like this right.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/downloads_and_tools/housing_advice_booklets/getting_repairs_done_advice_guide

Pg 15

"Can I be forced to move out while the repairs are carried out?

If major repairs are necessary, the landlord may ask you to move out for
a while. The landlord may, but does not have to, provide somewhere
suitable for you to stay while the work is going on.

Before moving out, you should make sure that the landlord confirms
in writing what s/he will pay for (eg extra travel costs to/from work),
what rent, if any, you will pay, and that you can move back in when the
works are completed."