Will this ruling strike fear in all Buy to Let landlords owning leasehold flats?

Mokka

This recent judgement should strike fear in the hearts of all Buy to Let landlords of leasehold flats who do not take all reasonable steps to keep the building in good repair. Taking all reasonable steps includes resorting to legal action against the freeholder if necessary.

Tenants can now sue the landlord for damages/injuries resulting not just from the disrepair of the flat, but the whole building and access road.

The problem in a recent case for a buy to let landlord was described by one of the Judges in a recent Court of Appeal case. Lewison LJ introduced the judgment with these words:

'One summer evening in 2010 Mr Edwards was taking rubbish out from a second floor flat which he and his partner rented from Mr Kumarasamy. He tripped over an uneven paving stone in the pathway between the front door of the block and the communal bins in the car park, as a result of which he injured his knee. The pathway is 10 to 12 feet long and is the essential means of access to the block. The tenancy under which Mr Edwards rented the flat was an assured shorthold tenancy to which the implied repairing obligations in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applied. The issue on this appeal is whether Mr Kumarasamy is liable for Mr Edwards' injuries.'

The Court of Appeal held that the buy to let landlord was liable for the repairs even though:

The person who owned the freehold was responsible under the head lease for repairing the relevant areas and
The buy to let landlord had not received a notice informing him of any defects which needed repair.
(Edwards v.Kumasaramy [2015] EWCA Civ 20)

This will particularly affect those whose freeholders is a social landlord, in particularly councils, since they are most notorious for allowing their properties to fall into serious disrepair.

Guest101

Mokka wrote: »

This recent judgement should strike fear in the hearts of all Buy to Let landlords of leasehold flats who do not take all reasonable steps to keep the building in good repair. Taking all reasonable steps includes resorting to legal action against the freeholder if necessary.

Tenants can now sue the landlord for damages/injuries resulting not just from the disrepair of the flat, but the whole building and access road.

The problem in a recent case for a buy to let landlord was described by one of the Judges in a recent Court of Appeal case. Lewison LJ introduced the judgment with these words:

'One summer evening in 2010 Mr Edwards was taking rubbish out from a second floor flat which he and his partner rented from Mr Kumarasamy. He tripped over an uneven paving stone in the pathway between the front door of the block and the communal bins in the car park, as a result of which he injured his knee. The pathway is 10 to 12 feet long and is the essential means of access to the block. The tenancy under which Mr Edwards rented the flat was an assured shorthold tenancy to which the implied repairing obligations in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applied. The issue on this appeal is whether Mr Kumarasamy is liable for Mr Edwards' injuries.'

The Court of Appeal held that the buy to let landlord was liable for the repairs even though:

The person who owned the freehold was responsible under the head lease for repairing the relevant areas and
The buy to let landlord had not received a notice informing him of any defects which needed repair.
(Edwards v.Kumasaramy [2015] EWCA Civ 20)

This will particularly affect those whose freeholders is a social landlord, in particularly councils, since they are most notorious for allowing their properties to fall into serious disrepair.

The BTL LLs would immediately have a case against the freeholder though

G_M

http://court-appeal.vlex.co.uk/vid/b2-2013-3178-554719262

Finally, many superior landlords –- Mr Kumarasamy’s landlord in this case – covenant with their tenants to keep in repair communal areas. Indeed, this was the case here – but if offered no assistance to Mr Kumarasamy because liability under the covenant in question only arose upon notice having been given. But let’s imagine that such a requirement had not been in the lease or perhaps that notice had in fact been given. In either of these standard scenarios, a third party -- the superior landlord -- may well have been joined. Once again, this is something that advisors should be keeping an eye out for – especially those representing those in the position that Mr Kumarasamy found himself in.

(http://fieldcourt.co.uk/case/edwards-v-kumarasamy-2015-ewca-civ-20/)

stator

Not entirely sure why BTL is important here, surely all LL who don't control the freehold should be aware?

Should the LL insurance cover this payout?

Mokka

Not entirely sure why BTL is important here, surely all LL who don't control the freehold should be aware?

Well spotted. It also applies to 'Inherit to let' and 'Gifted to let' landlords.

Interesting point about insurance.

brit1234

Any decent landlord would create a safe environment for their tenants. Being a landlord is a business not a investment, you have responsibilities not simply sitting back and watch the money roll in.

davidmcn

stator wrote: »

Should the LL insurance cover this payout?

Yes, in reality the case was almost certainly against an insurance company rather than the landlord themselves. All that landlords need to fear is increased premiums.

eddddy

G_M wrote: »

Mr Kumarasamy’s landlord in this case – covenant with their tenants to keep in repair communal areas. Indeed, this was the case here – but if offered no assistance to Mr Kumarasamy because liability under the covenant in question only arose upon notice having been given.

If the covenant in the lease required notice to be given, could Mr Kumarasamy have protected himself by putting the same notice requirement in the AST?

I'd have thought that if it's an enforceable term in a lease, it should also be an enforceable term in an AST.

In general, someone in Mr Kumarasamy's position should always ensure that covenants in their lease are mirrored in an AST. Otherwise, a tenants action's could put the leaseholder in breach of the lease, even though the tenant isn't in breach of the AST.

Mokka

I am wondering if the Section 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 would be of any help to the leaseholder landlord. The freeholder I assume has a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the leaseholder, his family and visitors are safe from risk of personal injury and from damage to personal belongings.

caronoel

brit1234 wrote: »

Any decent landlord would create a safe environment for their tenants.

Yes - fully agree

brit1234 wrote: »

Being a landlord is a business not a investment, you have responsibilities not simply sitting back and watch the money roll in.

Nope - you've got this wrong.

Being a LL is both a business and an investment.

The missus and I have had wonderful tenants over the past 6 or so years, who have happily paid the rent on time and accepted 3-5% rent rises year on year.

So, in my personal experience, it has been lovely to sit back and watch the money roll in.

As for how much London property has rocketed up in that time?? Now, THAT is truly lovely!

2009 was the year we invested ... seems so long ago now.

Did you know some idiot on here was predicting a 50% price fall by Christmas 2009? What a bannana!

Soundgirlrocks

caronoel wrote: »

Being a LL is both a business and an investment.

The missus and I have had wonderful tenants over the past 6 or so years, who have happily paid the rent on time and accepted 3-5% rent rises year on year.

So, in my personal experience, it has been lovely to sit back and watch the money roll in.

As for how much London property has rocketed up in that time?? Now, THAT is truly lovely!

2009 was the year we invested ... seems so long ago now.

Did you know some idiot on here was predicting a 50% price fall by Christmas 2009? What a bannana!

An the tax man is even happier with the capital gains he'll get on that when you try and release that equity:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: