Really need help! Re: Alternative Accomodation

almo81

Our flat that we rent out was destroyed in a fire on Saturday, the tenants are currently homeless. The council keep calling saying it's our responsibility to re home the tenants but I don't think that it is. The fire started in the neighbouring council flat and spread to ours causing fire and water damage.
The building insurance will/should cover our loss of income but not alternative Accomadation for the tenants.
As they have been made homeless through not fault of us or themselves surely the local authority need to provide temporary accomodation? Please help....

marksoton

Inadequate LL insurance then....

tomtontom

Why should the council be providing your tenants with accommodation? If your neighbours had a fire and you had to move, would you be telling them to find you somewhere?

You may be able to claim against the council if they are negligent, but for now you are responsible for finding your tenants suitable accommodation. You could have insured against this.

booksurr

it is good to know you have made sure that your loss of income will be covered. What does your tenancy agreement say about force majeure?

pity you did not pay the extra for a decent landlords insurance policy including cost of alternative accommodation.

as the law stands you are not required to provide alternative accommodation for them, nor to pay them to find their own, because (your saving grace) the fire was not your fault. Whether the council is responsible is for someone else to answer.

have you tried google?
http://www.property118.com/fire-damage-and-re-housing-tenants-help/82020/

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

booksurr

tomtontom wrote: »

but for now you are responsible for finding your tenants suitable accommodation.

no he isn't

molerat

tomtontom wrote: »

Why should the council be providing your tenants with accommodation? If your neighbours had a fire and you had to move, would you be telling them to find you somewhere?

You may be able to claim against the council if they are negligent, but for now you are responsible for finding your tenants suitable accommodation. You could have insured against this.

Maybe because a council has an obligation to house homeless people which the tenants now are. Most councils will do everything possible to get out of their obligations.

If my own [STRIKE]property[/STRIKE] residence was rendered un liveable I hope that my insurance that I pay for would cover an alternative.

It would seem that general opinion is that the contract is now frustrated and as such the landlord has no further responsibility unless he has been negligent. Return their deposit and any pro rata rent overpaid unless of course you want to do more to help.

PasturesNew

Yes, as the landlord it is your responsibility to house your tenants, so long as they keep paying you rent.

There is a slim chance that you might be able to pursue the route of "a frustrated contract", but that doesn't help them today, now, when they need it.

Get them sorted out, now, today.... then look at your other options.

If your brain's dead on this..... you could check out airbnb which is a "quick in" solution to getting them somewhere fast.... or a local B&B.

In any case, they've paid you rent, you're not housing them. The Council don't have "magic pop up houses". It's part of your responsibilities, as a Landlord, to have all your bases covered.

Miss_Samantha

PasturesNew wrote: »

Yes, as the landlord it is your responsibility to house your tenants, so long as they keep paying you rent.

As advised above, there is no such responsibility.

In the circumstances I think the most sensible way forward, if possible, would be to consider the tenancy frustrated by the destruction of the property. I.e. the tenancy has ended, no more rent is due and almo81 should refund the deposit quickly.

Almo81 should urgently seek legal advice instead of posting here!

pinkshoes

I thought considering the tenancy frustrated had to be a mutual agreement? So if the tenant wants and needs rehousing, the LL needs to pay...

A friend of mine had revolting mould in his flat he rented, and EH condemned it. The LL had to find him alternative temporary accommodation (he was 3 months into a 6 month tenancy), although after a few days he agreed to end the tenancy.

Edit: i stand corrected. Apparently the LL does not have any legal obligation to rehouse;
http://www.landlordsguild.com/house-destroyed-by-fire-or-flood/

booksurr

pinkshoes wrote: »

I thought considering the tenancy frustrated had to be a mutual agreement? So if the tenant wants and needs rehousing, the LL needs to pay...

A friend of mine had revolting mould in his flat he rented, and EH condemned it. The LL had to find him alternative temporary accommodation (he was 3 months into a 6 month tenancy), although after a few days he agreed to end the tenancy.

completely different scenario. Presumably EH held the mould to be failure of the landlord's repairing obligation, so as the law says he had to complete on his contract, it was not frustrated due to inability to live there. The fact they mutually agreed to terminate it later is unrelated to the fact it was (apparently) the LL's fault

Fire originating from the neighbouring property, as in the Op's case, is "an Act of God", and is force majeure / contract frustration as it is neither tenant's nor LL's fault.

pinkshoes wrote: »

Edit: i stand corrected. Apparently the LL does not have any legal obligation to rehouse;
http://www.landlordsguild.com/house-destroyed-by-fire-or-flood/

LOL - the link I posted at #4

whether OP has an insurance claim against the council since it was within their property that the fire originated, will be dealt with by his insurers. Not that that is any help in terms of where his tenants can go now and who (if anyone) pays them

csgohan4

So the LL tried to skimp by not getting insurance, you wonder what the flat was like before the fire? maybe it is a good thing for the tenants?