LL stating access will be given to contractor despite permission being denied

diystarter7

silvercar said:

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Hard pressed owner occupiers" will also employ the contractors directly and will be able to hold them to account or replace them if the work is not completed in a reasanable time. Is the op being treated as "just" a tenant?

The reasonable timescale has been set out by the council and is not expired. There is accountability in this case.
The landlord is trying to stick to the directions. Given all the shortcomings of this landlord, the last thing I would be doing is turning down chances to get the work done.

The op was forced to involve the council due to the failure to complete the work, this would be after a reasanable timescale has already passed. An owner occupier would have much more control over timescales. The contractor is accountable to the landlord, not the tenant.

I agree allowing access is needed but the contractors need to use the access to complete the work and not work at their convenience. The landlord should be pushing the contractor to complete the work.

All contractors work to their own convenience. The idea that landlords have a magic wand that mean they can summon a contractor to work as and when they want is pure fiction.

Sadly a lot of people that don't have to pay don't recognise that fact.

_Penny_Dreadful

macman said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...

Can you please quote the legislation that requires the landlord to do either of those things?

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018

There is also a breach of the terms of the AST if the home is uninhabitable due to the LL's action or inaction, so the tenant could sue.
And a breach of Section 11 of the Landlords and Tenants Act 2016, which has clearly occurred here, renders the LL liable for the costs of alternative accommodation (though technically not liable to actually provide the accommodation).
But any sane LL would arrange the accommodation themselves, rather than leaving the tenant to find it, and so effectively writing a blank cheque.

Neither of those pieces of legislation require the landlord to provide, or pay for, alternative accommodation for the tenants never mind their dog.  A landlord is only legally required to provide alternative accommodation if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement saying they must.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/moving_out_during_repairs

diystarter7

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...

Can you please quote the legislation that requires the landlord to do either of those things?

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018

There is also a breach of the terms of the AST if the home is uninhabitable due to the LL's action or inaction, so the tenant could sue.
And a breach of Section 11 of the Landlords and Tenants Act 2016, which has clearly occurred here, renders the LL liable for the costs of alternative accommodation (though technically not liable to actually provide the accommodation).
But any sane LL would arrange the accommodation themselves, rather than leaving the tenant to find it, and so effectively writing a blank cheque.

Neither of those pieces of legislation require the landlord to provide, or pay for, alternative accommodation for the tenants never mind their dog.  A landlord is only legally required to provide alternative accommodation if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement saying they must.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/moving_out_during_repairs

_Penny_Dreadful 

Many thanks for the information.

Thanks

macman

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...

Can you please quote the legislation that requires the landlord to do either of those things?

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018

There is also a breach of the terms of the AST if the home is uninhabitable due to the LL's action or inaction, so the tenant could sue.
And a breach of Section 11 of the Landlords and Tenants Act 2016, which has clearly occurred here, renders the LL liable for the costs of alternative accommodation (though technically not liable to actually provide the accommodation).
But any sane LL would arrange the accommodation themselves, rather than leaving the tenant to find it, and so effectively writing a blank cheque.

Neither of those pieces of legislation require the landlord to provide, or pay for, alternative accommodation for the tenants never mind their dog.  A landlord is only legally required to provide alternative accommodation if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement saying they must.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/moving_out_during_repairs

However failure to provide habitable accommodation, be it the original property, or a temporary alternative, would be a breach of the tenancy agreement and would leave the LL liable to a civil action for compensation, which the tenant would be very likely to win.

steampowered

Utterlyconfused81 said:

The property was advertised and tenancy taken on "recently refurbished and finished to a high standard throughout" basis. 

This is a key piece of information that noone else has mentioned yet.

If the property was advertised as "recently refurbished" when it was not, that is a fraudulent misrepresentation.

That would entitle the Op to terminate the contract if they so choose, in addition to claiming damages from LL via the court system, if the Op wanted to be more aggressive with this.

user1977

steampowered said:

Utterlyconfused81 said:

The property was advertised and tenancy taken on "recently refurbished and finished to a high standard throughout" basis. 

This is a key piece of information that noone else has mentioned yet.

If the property was advertised as "recently refurbished" when it was not, that is a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Sounds like it had been recently refurbished though. With a bunch of stuff for the contractors to come back and fix.

propertyrental

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...

Can you please quote the legislation that requires the landlord to do either of those things?

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018

There is also a breach of the terms of the AST if the home is uninhabitable due to the LL's action or inaction, so the tenant could sue.
And a breach of Section 11 of the Landlords and Tenants Act 2016, which has clearly occurred here, renders the LL liable for the costs of alternative accommodation (though technically not liable to actually provide the accommodation).
But any sane LL would arrange the accommodation themselves, rather than leaving the tenant to find it, and so effectively writing a blank cheque.

Neither of those pieces of legislation require the landlord to provide, or pay for, alternative accommodation for the tenants never mind their dog.  A landlord is only legally required to provide alternative accommodation if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement saying they must.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/moving_out_during_repairs

I'm highly dubious about Shelter's advice here, despite having a lot of respect for them generakky.

If the property is 'uninhabitable' (itself subject to legal interpretation), a contract exists, and rent is being paid, then the LL is clearly in breach of contract by not providing habitable accommodation. The tenant could therefore sue for any consequential losses and costs, eg removals if required, hotel accommodation etc.

Certainly there have been cases where this has happened though, sorry, I can't immediately provide links!

It's for this reason that most landlords insurance policies will cover:

"We will pay you for costs of reasonable

alternative accommodation for your

tenants and temporary storage of your

tenants furniture while the residential

portion of the property cannot be lived

in or access is denied as a result of

damage. This cover will only apply where

we have made a payment or accepted

liability under the Buildings section of

this policy."

https://www.axa.co.uk/globalassets/pdfs/landlord/policy-docs/2021-12/residential-landlords-policy-wording-direct--acld0520p-r-400052_web.pdf/

TheJP

What I'm struggling with is that this seems a decent size job. Why would any contractor travel 45 minutes to do bits and bobs and keep travelling across? When i had work done in my house the contractor looked at how long it would take and bulk the job in to those days, if it was 3 days but was lacking he worked for longer on the last day as he didn't want to come back due to other jobs.

It feel like there is maybe more to this as to why its taking so long for the contractor to do the job.

OhWow

macman said:

If you don't have access to a fully functioning bath or shower then the LL should be rehousing you for the duration of the work, at their expense. If the dog is permitted under your AST, then they need to rehouse the dog too...
I don't know how much else of the property is affected, but it looks like the work is widespread.
Sounds as if the contractor is billing on an hourly rate and so stringing the job out intentionally.

I agree. The OP should discuss this with the council who put the order on the landlord. The council can order the landlord to rehouse you while the work is being carried out and to pay for storage of your belongings . This will mean that -

1. The landlord can have the work carried out at any time/day while the property is empty.

2. The work will be done quickly because the landlords insurers will likely have a time limt to stop any abuse. If the landlord failed to buy this insurance, they will have to cover the hotel bill and storage themselves: which will mean they will want the work carried out very quickly.

OhWow

subjecttocontract said:

......and it's important to recognise that tenants are not entitled, by virtue of paying rent, to expect any better treatment than an owner occupier might expect in the same situation.

We moved out when we had work done on our bathroom. It's sad to think that some home owners can't afford to move out while repairs such as these are carried out.

However, letting a property is a business and the landlord should have insurance to pay for his tenant to be in a hotel while this work is being carried out. It's a very foolish business person who doesn't buy insurance.