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

losgiganteskid

Guest101 wrote: »

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

No - I never mentioned eviction of the tenant - i'm merely suggesting from what I have gleaned from my links is that the landlord is under no obligation to offer alternative accommodation to a tenant where repairs have to be undertaken to the property to which the landlord had no prior warning of the situation that lead to the fire/flood or whatever

losgiganteskid

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

Sorry, but I don't think this thread is about the second paragraph - as that applies where the landlord has been neglectful in his duties in either maintaining the property or when a matter of fault was brought to his attention he failed to deal with it which resulted in the problem escalating.

Clearly from what the OP stated ".....there was a burst pipe underground" - presumably there would be no way the landlord or anyone else could have foreseen that AND ".....it was quickly fixed" - so again the landlord could not be blamed for either failing to carry out a repair to which he was not aware existed neither did he delay in getting repairs dealt with - so clearly paragraph one applies whereby no alternative accomodation is granted

losgiganteskid

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

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."

yes - the more I investigate this I believe your original statement is correct.

I wonder whether as a tenant i'm able to insure myself for alternative accommodation should a serious problem arise whereby I have to move out - although I assume I will have to pay rent to the new home and not pay the current landlord whilst i'm not living at his address, although again from what i've read i'm renting not only the house but the land the house is on, and that hasn't burnt down !!

Guest101

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

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."

So we're arguing semantics, as the tenant is entitled to it, and either the LL can amicably pay expenses for other accomodation, or the court can order him to pay. either way the LL is responsible.

The LL breaches the contract, and is forced to pay

Guest101

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't think this thread is about the second paragraph - as that applies where the landlord has been neglectful in his duties in either maintaining the property or when a matter of fault was brought to his attention he failed to deal with it which resulted in the problem escalating.

Clearly from what the OP stated ".....there was a burst pipe underground" - presumably there would be no way the landlord or anyone else could have foreseen that AND ".....it was quickly fixed" - so again the landlord could not be blamed for either failing to carry out a repair to which he was not aware existed neither did he delay in getting repairs dealt with - so clearly paragraph one applies whereby no alternative accomodation is granted

No it's not clear, because under what act/ section is the LL asking the tenant to leave, if not by s.11?

That's what i mean by your post / link not being clear