Can an estate agent be liable for unreported damage?

GrimJam

Hi everyone – a question on behalf of my mum, who is at her house right now, cleaning up a huge mess after her tenant was evicted for non-payment of rent. Turns out the place was left in an awful state – stained, smoke-damaged, and dog-damaged (in breach of the contract, of course).

Her estate agent had been conducting inspections every six months, and never reported the damage building up –!in addition to the above, there are walls and doors with holes put through them, breakages to furniture… the list goes on…

This damage can't just have occurred since the last inspection of the house (receipts for cigarettes and dog food were found, dating back to 2014), and the estate agent never mentioned a thing.

Obviously the tenant's not getting their deposit back, but that's not going to cover the whole clean-up. The question is: can the estate agent be held responsible for some of the costs of the damage?

Thanks for any advice

Derboy

Does this not depend on the wording of the contract she has with the agent?

eddddy

Your claim is really against the tenants.

I doubt there will be a clause in the agency contract saying something like "if we fail to notice damage during an inspection, we will pay for the damage to be repaired".

I guess you could try making a claim against the agent for negligence (failing to carry out inspections in a reasonable manner).

But if the agent had spotted the damage during an inspection and told you, would the tenant have paid at the time? If so, why won't they pay now?

G_M

Yes and no.

Obviously the tenants are liable and can be sued, assuming a) they can be found and b) they have assets.

(though in fact if they've vanished, they can still be sued via service at the last known address - the property, and can also be sued if they have no assets - but will be unable to pay)

The agent's liability depends on

a) the wording of the contract between landlord and agent, and
b) whether they breached that contract, and
c) whether consequential costs of the breach can be evaluated/proved

For example, if the contract states 6 monthly inspections are required, but were not undertaken, then the agent could be sued for breach of contract.

But the claim would not be for the full damage done by the tenants, only for that damage which would have been avoided had the inspections taken place. Bearing in mind that the inspections per se would not necessarily have prevented further damage occurring, though earlier eviction might have been possible had the early damage been known about, thus avoiding later damage.

All very difficult to prove.

There is also the possibility that inspections did take place in acordance with the contract (if indeed the contract required them), but either
* were poorly undertaken, and /or
* poorly written up, and/or
* not passed on to the landlord

Finally, is it possible that inspection reports were passed to the landlord but she failed to read them properly or fully take on board the consequences of what was written.

kinger101

It's probably a case of whether the letting agent has breached their contract by not conducting proper inspections, and if so, whether the consequential losses resulting could have been envisaged. But the EA might just turn round and say the damage occurred since their last inspection (a receipt for cigarettes doesn't prove they've been smoking in the house).

Unless they're broke, it would be much easier to go after the tenants.

You mum could raise a formal complaint with the agent, and then raise it with the ombudsman scheme of which they are a member.