Is this an ethical way to pay this debt ? will this work?

madaboutspots

If the landlord's insurance for buildings (within the boundary of their privately owned area) refuses to pay up they would give their reasons. If this then brings the landlord back to you with their hand out, ask them to provide the evidence (in writing) from the insurance company. 

Of course if the issue has caused a problem in say the flat below with water ingress then it might be the owner below would look to claim on the landlord's insurance as well. Can get messy.

Question for you.... Are you actually wanting to move back once this is all resolved or could this cause you to look at other options? It can make a difference on how bullish you're prepared to be to clear your name and protect your rent and other potential bills is: the boiler damage.

Also - who's idea was it to hand the keys back? How did that come about?

katesheet

madaboutspots said:

If the landlord's insurance for buildings (within the boundary of their privately owned area) refuses to pay up they would give their reasons. If this then brings the landlord back to you with their hand out, ask them to provide the evidence (in writing) from the insurance company. 

Of course if the issue has caused a problem in say the flat below with water ingress then it might be the owner below would look to claim on the landlord's insurance as well. Can get messy.

Question for you.... Are you actually wanting to move back once this is all resolved or could this cause you to look at other options? It can make a difference on how bullish you're prepared to be to clear your name and protect your rent and other potential bills is: the boiler damage.

Also - who's idea was it to hand the keys back? How did that come about?

Keys, the landlord asked, and they were given back without any holding back, as no belongings were there anywhere. Could that be a trick the landlord is playing ?
He has hinted an put the same tenant back after it is all furnished, but just the limbo of the costs and liability.

Once resolved the tenant is looking to move back in here, so that is a yes will be looking to come back to live in there.

Another question,
would the landlord property insurance pay out due to tenant damage (if it was determined tenants negligence caused the damage)

Does landlord property insurance usually cover tenant damage?

A_Lert

I think you should get written confirmation from your landlord that your tenancy is continuing. You've moved yourselves and all your belongings out and handed back the keys, those are actions they could argue were an implied surrender of the tenancy. If your landlord does take the view that you've surrendered the tenancy, and you don't dispute that, then continuing to claim housing benefit is fraud.

On the other hand if it's accepted you are still the tenant, then the rent is the rent. It doesn't pay for any damage you're found responsible for.

katesheet

thanx A_Lert  surrender was not offered by the tenant, although keys given back and belongings emptied the tenant has not surrendered. 

What if the landlord assumes it was surrendered but the tenant disputes that they did not surrender? which would seem more of a assumption by the landlord.

then in the point of law is this not considered a surrender ? or not,    

madaboutspots

So a quick search on "what does landlords insurance cover" gives this amongst others...

Landlord insurance covers against risks related to your buy-to-let property and rental activity. Most policies start with building insurance and property owners' liability insurance. You can add many other covers, such as loss of rent, tenant default or accidental damage, depending on your needs. 

So it really depends what risk the landlord decided to take. They would need buildings insurance if they have a mortgage on the property - the mortgage company would insist on it. That wouldn't have to cover accidental damage or bad behaviour type damage from the tenant. 

I would try not to worry about all the ins and outs of what risk level the landlord decided to take. Let them know you have sought advice and are asking (politely but firmly and quite reasonably) to have them give you the evidence of your fault/damage/negligence, ask for evidence the insurance company are refusing to pay out and why. Ask for this info in writing.

You're getting yourself quite bogged down in fine detail that shouldn't be your problem and causing yourself added stress. Let the landlord do the bits that you pay your rent to cover. He should have insurance to cover him and the onus would be on him to prove you're at fault. (Him/her where applicable.)

To me, the landlord asking for the keys back smacks a bit of a ruse to get them back, get paid and leave you high and dry. As I said, there should be no reason they would ask otherwise. 

They should give you a formal (in writing) 2 months' notice if they intend to re-let to someone else. Interesting the works are expected to take around the same amount of time. I would have thought a dehumidifier would help dry the area out quickly. Not expensive to buy/rent - again, leave this to the landlord. How bad really was this water everywhere issue? Do you know if the electrics had to be isolated and switched off completely due to the water? Any damage to other flats? Was any of your property/personal items damaged? Is it possible this is just to support their grievance? It just seems odd to ask for the keys back if a legit issue to sort and have you move back in.

If they try to get you to pay and then try and keep your deposit for not giving notice but re-let to someone else this could get quite unpleasant. How would you get the deposit to rent somewhere else while you wait for the ombudsman to mediate or rule and hope to get your deposit back? That arbitration could take a couple of months.

I would honestly say that my gut instinct is the landlord is looking after their own interests entirely and might not want you back in. I would suggest you use the time to keep asking for all the "evidence" of the issue and cause and investigate your alternative living options. That then gives you 2 months to see if you could be better off elsewhere whilst still trying to resolve with the landlord. If you end up with both options available and you and landlord get back on an even footing you have a choice. New place or old. But what if you end up with nowhere because you're relying on this and the landlord is just using this as an excuse to elbow you out, keeping your deposit for the "notice period" you didn't give.

Maybe start by writing/emailing the landlord and stating that following on from the boiler fault you complied with their request to return the keys to allow the work to take place. Can he please confirm the current estimated or given date for you to move back in.

This would make it clear that you have handed back the keys as asked, not voluntarily, you want and expect "as per our agreement/discussion" to move back in and you haven't just caused damage and absconded. Imagine how it could look if the landlord suggested you did cause the damage and then just handed back the keys, took your stuff and left. What evidence other than your word have you currently got that that wasn't what happened?

You can also say that whilst you are currently of the belief you've done nothing wrong and accept no liability, you would like the landlord to forward by reply all official and impartial evidence they have which they believe shows you are at fault. Can they also please forward to you the current valid gas/electric safety certificates and any correspondence they have received from their insurance company suggesting the damage was intentional and/or not covered by the policy the landlord chose to take out. Landlord should have both separate gas and electric certification. Electric required every 5 years, gas every 1 year. 

I honestly think you need to consider alternative options on somewhere to live though. As I said, my gut feel is this landlord wanted the keys back for a reason. Don't leave all your eggs in one basket. Leave the landlord to sort out their flat, that's their responsibility. Try and get some things in writing and consider your alternatives - even if just in case. Better to be prepared and have choices than to be left stuck and skint.

You could also consider speaking to the council - that way, if anyone were to suggest to them you were being dishonest, you could prove that you weren't. 

madaboutspots

Re surrender or not. In the absence of anything in writing, your behaviours (emptying place of all your belongings and giving keys back) could very easily be argued as enough evidence of voluntary surrender of tenancy. Hence my suggestions above writing to the landlord, politely following up on when will work be completed and can I move back in as we agreed. What arrangements can we make for me to collect my set of keys you asked to have to assist letting the builders in because I'd like to be back in as soon as is reasonable and will need my keys to do so. 

katesheet

thanx madaboutspots xxxx good info.

If his insurance does not pay out, and he has a letter to show this from them, when the tenant can ask for as proof, (so the tenant knows for real the insurers wont pay out)

as some insurers don't pay out on first contact, and then you chase them up, and persuade them and then they consider paying out.,  what if the landlord does this with the insurers and communicates with them to and from,  and eventually they pay out something,   and thus give a new second letter,

but he doesn't reveal this fact to the tenant, so gives the tenant the impression that the insurers wont pay (showing letter 1 - Refusal to pay)  but secretly weeks later has a second letter, where they agree to pay.

if he hides the second letter he will be giving the illusion to the tenant that they are not paying, (but wil be getting insurance money) and also asking for payment from the tenant too, using the "insurance are not paying" as a reason,  but to his secret knowledge he will get paid by them. So he would be looking potentially get two lots of payments which is a dirty tactic,  (insurance and tenant) - which tenant wouldn't agree too giving.

is that what sometimes happens in these issues, one party shows letter 1 of insurance rejection,  when weeks later they insurance approve and pay out, and give letter 2,  but the party keeps back letter 2, just to give the illusion letter 1 is what the insurance are saying, and giving the illusion they will not pay out?

why would the landlord do this? to get two lots of potential payouts.

or is there a way to check the insurance letter is genuine/ and up to date and no further discussions will be had between the insurance and the landlord?
 

MalMonroe

In your first post you say "Obviously as pointed out before, the council/housing benefit depart Wont know about this." And then you ask if it is ethical. No, it is not ethical. When you are awarded any benefit, including housing benefit, you are specifically told that you are required to report each and every single change of circumstance and your benefits will then be amended accordingly. If you do not report any change of circumstance then you are guilty of benefits fraud. That's taxpayers money you're talking about taking and it's illegal.  It's naive to think that the benefits department 'won't know about this' because they do eventually find out. It only takes one nosy curtain twitching neighbour to get on the phone. . . (and I mean one of your relatives' neighbours as well, not just yours). It's better coming from you than if somebody reports you.

You paid a deposit when you moved in but didn't you also have to sign a tenancy agreement? If so that should give information about insurance and liability, etc.

I agree with madaboutspots, I'd look for somewhere else to live - ensuring that the council knows about your living arrangements as soon as possible (i.e. about you living rent-free with relatives). 

CRANKY40

Just a quick note...if the property is a flat the landlord doesn't usually hold buildings insurance, that's the purpose of the management company. Flats are usually built leasehold not freehold and the reason that you pay a fee to the management company is that they ensure that the entire building is insured but buildings only, not contents. If this wasn't the case then you could have the ridiculous situation where a block of flats burned down say and if the ground floor flat wasn't insured then all the flats above would not be able to be rebuilt. By insuring the whole block, the management company prevents this situation. I hope this helps to explain the role of the management company. 

katesheet

madaboutspots said:

So a quick search on "what does landlords insurance cover" gives this amongst others...

Landlord insurance covers against risks related to your buy-to-let property and rental activity. Most policies start with building insurance and property owners' liability insurance. You can add many other covers, such as loss of rent, tenant default or accidental damage, depending on your needs. 

So it really depends what risk the landlord decided to take. They would need buildings insurance if they have a mortgage on the property - the mortgage company would insist on it. That wouldn't have to cover accidental damage or bad behaviour type damage from the tenant. 

I would try not to worry about all the ins and outs of what risk level the landlord decided to take. Let them know you have sought advice and are asking (politely but firmly and quite reasonably) to have them give you the evidence of your fault/damage/negligence, ask for evidence the insurance company are refusing to pay out and why. Ask for this info in writing.

You're getting yourself quite bogged down in fine detail that shouldn't be your problem and causing yourself added stress. Let the landlord do the bits that you pay your rent to cover. He should have insurance to cover him and the onus would be on him to prove you're at fault. (Him/her where applicable.)

To me, the landlord asking for the keys back smacks a bit of a ruse to get them back, get paid and leave you high and dry. As I said, there should be no reason they would ask otherwise. 

They should give you a formal (in writing) 2 months' notice if they intend to re-let to someone else. Interesting the works are expected to take around the same amount of time. I would have thought a dehumidifier would help dry the area out quickly. Not expensive to buy/rent - again, leave this to the landlord. How bad really was this water everywhere issue? Do you know if the electrics had to be isolated and switched off completely due to the water? Any damage to other flats? Was any of your property/personal items damaged? Is it possible this is just to support their grievance? It just seems odd to ask for the keys back if a legit issue to sort and have you move back in.

If they try to get you to pay and then try and keep your deposit for not giving notice but re-let to someone else this could get quite unpleasant. How would you get the deposit to rent somewhere else while you wait for the ombudsman to mediate or rule and hope to get your deposit back? That arbitration could take a couple of months.

I would honestly say that my gut instinct is the landlord is looking after their own interests entirely and might not want you back in. I would suggest you use the time to keep asking for all the "evidence" of the issue and cause and investigate your alternative living options. That then gives you 2 months to see if you could be better off elsewhere whilst still trying to resolve with the landlord. If you end up with both options available and you and landlord get back on an even footing you have a choice. New place or old. But what if you end up with nowhere because you're relying on this and the landlord is just using this as an excuse to elbow you out, keeping your deposit for the "notice period" you didn't give.

Maybe start by writing/emailing the landlord and stating that following on from the boiler fault you complied with their request to return the keys to allow the work to take place. Can he please confirm the current estimated or given date for you to move back in.

This would make it clear that you have handed back the keys as asked, not voluntarily, you want and expect "as per our agreement/discussion" to move back in and you haven't just caused damage and absconded. Imagine how it could look if the landlord suggested you did cause the damage and then just handed back the keys, took your stuff and left. What evidence other than your word have you currently got that that wasn't what happened?

You can also say that whilst you are currently of the belief you've done nothing wrong and accept no liability, you would like the landlord to forward by reply all official and impartial evidence they have which they believe shows you are at fault. Can they also please forward to you the current valid gas/electric safety certificates and any correspondence they have received from their insurance company suggesting the damage was intentional and/or not covered by the policy the landlord chose to take out. Landlord should have both separate gas and electric certification. Electric required every 5 years, gas every 1 year. 

I honestly think you need to consider alternative options on somewhere to live though. As I said, my gut feel is this landlord wanted the keys back for a reason. Don't leave all your eggs in one basket. Leave the landlord to sort out their flat, that's their responsibility. Try and get some things in writing and consider your alternatives - even if just in case. Better to be prepared and have choices than to be left stuck and skint.

You could also consider speaking to the council - that way, if anyone were to suggest to them you were being dishonest, you could prove that you weren't. 

madaboutspots said:

Re surrender or not. In the absence of anything in writing, your behaviours (emptying place of all your belongings and giving keys back) could very easily be argued as enough evidence of voluntary surrender of tenancy. Hence my suggestions above writing to the landlord, politely following up on when will work be completed and can I move back in as we agreed. What arrangements can we make for me to collect my set of keys you asked to have to assist letting the builders in because I'd like to be back in as soon as is reasonable and will need my keys to do so. 

Thankx xxxxx


"How bad really was this water everywhere issue? Do you know if the electrics had to be isolated and switched off completely due to the water?
The water was over the other walls and ceiling.
The electrics had to be switched off, as didn't want a spark to occur.

As for the surrender, the tenant did not surrender,
the landlord said the place would have to be fully emptied of everything of the tenants to a storage place, for repair work to be carried out. The tenant did this.
The landlord then asked for the set of keys to be handed (on email)  and the tenant did this, gave them back. The tenant did not surrender though.
Could this be used legally, looking like the action that the tenant surrendered? although the tenant did not surrender.

The landlord also asked for the rent of that month after the keys had been handed in, so could this help the tenant as it shows that the landlord still expected rent, while he had the keys and the flat empty?  - show a hint that is doesn't seem a surrender?

What points in written to the landlord, to show that they keys were only given by the tenant as the landlord request on a non surrender procedure?  (regardless of whether the landlord replies to the email or not)

What written points can the tenant write to him to shield the tenant from giving the impression that the tenancy was surrendered  (because it was not surrendered). 

Thanx again everyone xxxxxxxx