Does anyone have experience of renting on FRI terms?

theoretica

Wouldn't the tenancy have some sort of requirement to give it back in similar condition to when you rented it?  So if the roof falls in you can't just walk away.  Which would mean that the landlord would need to be able to prove the condition it was in when the tenancy started - which sounds like a survey to me.

planimals

theoretica said:

Wouldn't the tenancy have some sort of requirement to give it back in similar condition to when you rented it?  So if the roof falls in you can't just walk away.  Which would mean that the landlord would need to be able to prove the condition it was in when the tenancy started - which sounds like a survey to me.

You're suggesting the landlord would do the survey?

fewcloudy

planimals said:

…I assume I will need one though to get the insurance. Looks like it's a no-go from the start. Anyone have tonight's lottery numbers?

What, for a survey? They're not that expensive.

planimals

From what I can gather on Google they're £450+. What do you think I should expect to pay for one?

theoretica

planimals said:

theoretica said:

Wouldn't the tenancy have some sort of requirement to give it back in similar condition to when you rented it?  So if the roof falls in you can't just walk away.  Which would mean that the landlord would need to be able to prove the condition it was in when the tenancy started - which sounds like a survey to me.

You're suggesting the landlord would do the survey?

I am suggesting a sensible landlord might find it useful to have one.

canaldumidi

Blind leading the lame!

Few of us have experience of FRI lets, and the OP has little or no understanding of property maintenance, insurance etc.

* if you are liable for repairs, standard buildig insurane will cover basic riks eg fire, storm damage etc, but not routine maintenance or damage caused by lack of maintenance

I insurance might be voluntary (if so, you risk having to pay out forstorm damage), or may be compulsory, or may be provided by the crown. Ask.

* a suvey is voluntary, but if you are worrig about the condition of the prooerty you are taking on, a survey might be wise

* a 'long lease' = what? A year? 3? 10?

* have you seen a copy of the lease? What does it say? If not, ask for a draft copy.

* how much cheaper is the rent compared to local ASTs?

edit: the Crown Tenancy Bill was intended to bring crown tenancies under the Assured Tenancy umbrella. It passed 2 readings and the committee stage in 2017, but I find no evidence that it became law.....

user1977

theoretica said:

Wouldn't the tenancy have some sort of requirement to give it back in similar condition to when you rented it?  So if the roof falls in you can't just walk away.  Which would mean that the landlord would need to be able to prove the condition it was in when the tenancy started - which sounds like a survey to me.

The current condition can be recorded in a schedule of condition (aka the world's dullest photo album) - which (although typically carried out by surveyors) isn't a survey in the sense of being something the tenant can rely on, or providing any advice about how best defects ought to be remedied.

planimals

The lease is 15 years. The rent is half of what we're paying now but about a third of what we'd pay if we moved anywhere else.

I've two draft documents: heads of terms and residential lease.

There are these two paragraphs in the heads of terms:

Repairs

Tenant to be responsible for all works, repairs and replacement to the property for the duration of the lease with no compensation by the Landlord.

Indemnity

The Tenant will at all times indemnify from and against all claims, costs, charges and expenses made against or incurred.

But the lease document states: "damage by fire (occasioned by accident or negligence) storm and tempest excepted" which allays my worst fears of something like the chimney crashing through the roof.

eddddy

planimals said:

We would be 100% responsible for the condition of the property. So, if a storm knocked the chimney into the roof, the repairs would be our responsibility. 

I think you might have got confused by the answer to this question.

• If the chimney is in bad condition, poorly maintained or badly built etc and as a result, it falls over and smashes through the roof - you would be responsible for the cost of repairs.

• (You would probably still be responsible for the costs, if there was a relatively mild storm which shouldn't have caused any damage to the chimney, if it was in good condition.)

• However, if the chimney is in good condition, properly built and it gets blown over by a severe storm - and met office records confirm that there was severe storm in your area - then the repair costs should be covered by insurance.

More generally, buildings insurance generally covers these kinds of risks: 

• fire, explosion, storms, floods, earthquakes
• theft, attempted theft and vandalism
• frozen and burst pipes
• fallen trees, lampposts, aerials or satellite dishes
• subsidence
• vehicle or aircraft collisions

But it won't cover any damage that results from age, 'wear and tear'; poor maintenance; bad workmanship; bad materials. And it covers damage caused by specific 'events' (as listed above), and not any damage that occurs gradually (except perhaps subsidence).

user1977

What does it say (a) about insurance and (b) about the condition the property is to be handed back in?