Regulated Tenancy - Contract law advice required
Discussion
Evening,
Background
Mother/Father in law have lived in the same 19th century cottage for the last 37 years on a regulated tenancy. In the past they have redecorated and carried out general maintenance at their cost. Major work such as re-plastering, roof and electrics have been carried out by the landlord.
Fast forward to last week and they had a minor accident:
A load of plastic containers were left on top of the cooker (which was on) and they went out, 1 hour later and the place looks like the inside of a coal-mine. No fire but soot and fumes absolutely everywhere! Its pretty serious and 2 rooms are now uninhabitable.
They have contents insurance and called both their ins company and notified the landlord. Their ins company are settling on the basis of the damage goods but they have hit a problem with the building damage.
The damage to the building requires 2 lathe/plaster ceilings to be pulled down and reinstated, 3 rooms to be gutted and redecorated and the kitchen electrics to be rewired due to carbon deposits and being deemed unsafe. Total cost by a local builder circa £3500.
Now the landlord management company have said that their building insurance has declined the claim as it was accidental by the tenants and has referred to the original tenancy agreement that says that the interior is the responsibility of the tenant. At this point in time they are declining to have any financial input into the repairs.
Now to mind this can't be right as the MiL cannot insure the building as they have no financial interest. They have 3rd party insurance on their contents insurance but this is woefully short of the total cost.
My Question
Is there a contract lawyer in the house who could comment? I have the tenancy agreement in front of me from March 1971 and the pertinent section reads:
"The Tenant hereby agrees with the Landlords as follows:-
1) To pay the rent at the times and in the manner aforesaid
2) To pay all existing and future rates payable in respect of the said premises
3) To keep the interior of the said cottage (including the glass in the windows and the sanitary and water apparatus thereof) in a good and tenatable state of repair and decorative condition
4) To pay for all electricity and telephone charges incurred during the said term.
5) To use the said premises as a private dwellinghouse only.
6) Not to make any alterations in or addition to the said cottage.
7) etc"
Would clause 3 be enough for the Landlord to refute responsibility for the fire-damage to the building?
All replies gratefully recieved.
Background
Mother/Father in law have lived in the same 19th century cottage for the last 37 years on a regulated tenancy. In the past they have redecorated and carried out general maintenance at their cost. Major work such as re-plastering, roof and electrics have been carried out by the landlord.
Fast forward to last week and they had a minor accident:
A load of plastic containers were left on top of the cooker (which was on) and they went out, 1 hour later and the place looks like the inside of a coal-mine. No fire but soot and fumes absolutely everywhere! Its pretty serious and 2 rooms are now uninhabitable.
They have contents insurance and called both their ins company and notified the landlord. Their ins company are settling on the basis of the damage goods but they have hit a problem with the building damage.
The damage to the building requires 2 lathe/plaster ceilings to be pulled down and reinstated, 3 rooms to be gutted and redecorated and the kitchen electrics to be rewired due to carbon deposits and being deemed unsafe. Total cost by a local builder circa £3500.
Now the landlord management company have said that their building insurance has declined the claim as it was accidental by the tenants and has referred to the original tenancy agreement that says that the interior is the responsibility of the tenant. At this point in time they are declining to have any financial input into the repairs.
Now to mind this can't be right as the MiL cannot insure the building as they have no financial interest. They have 3rd party insurance on their contents insurance but this is woefully short of the total cost.
My Question
Is there a contract lawyer in the house who could comment? I have the tenancy agreement in front of me from March 1971 and the pertinent section reads:
"The Tenant hereby agrees with the Landlords as follows:-
1) To pay the rent at the times and in the manner aforesaid
2) To pay all existing and future rates payable in respect of the said premises
3) To keep the interior of the said cottage (including the glass in the windows and the sanitary and water apparatus thereof) in a good and tenatable state of repair and decorative condition
4) To pay for all electricity and telephone charges incurred during the said term.
5) To use the said premises as a private dwellinghouse only.
6) Not to make any alterations in or addition to the said cottage.
7) etc"
Would clause 3 be enough for the Landlord to refute responsibility for the fire-damage to the building?
All replies gratefully recieved.
Edited by apguy on Monday 10th March 21:54
That sounds like the kind of damage the landlord's buildings insurance should cover. Keep on at them. Threaten legal action if necesary.
I had trouble with a leaking water pipe in the floor of my leasehold flat. After 4 months wrnagling the freeholder shorted it out. I am just glad I wasn't the guy living below me who had water dripping into his electric meter for 4 months while the freeholder denied responsibility!
I had trouble with a leaking water pipe in the floor of my leasehold flat. After 4 months wrnagling the freeholder shorted it out. I am just glad I wasn't the guy living below me who had water dripping into his electric meter for 4 months while the freeholder denied responsibility!
I disagree it definately states in a good decorative condition.
The case above with the leaking pipe was not the tenants fault and therefore responsibility.
However. What would have been the scenario if the place had burnt down. That would have been covered by the Landlords insurance.
Looks like they were unlucky to have fallen between two stools and come up responsible.
The case above with the leaking pipe was not the tenants fault and therefore responsibility.
However. What would have been the scenario if the place had burnt down. That would have been covered by the Landlords insurance.
Looks like they were unlucky to have fallen between two stools and come up responsible.
I imagine the buildings insurers have declined to pay as the damage wasn't an insured risk - you say yourself there was no fire, therefore they say it's not a fire claim so not covered?
You can try to produce evidence that it was fire but your parents may have already said what you have said so blown that option. There is case law about whether smoke is fire and my recollection is that it's not.
There is hopefully a fallback position, their contents insurance will cover them for third party liability. They should go back to their insurers and tell them that the Landlord says they are responsible for the damage and see what they say.
Your parents should check whether they have legal expenses insurance. If they do they should be covered for a lawyer to investigate liability.
"Repair" is a huge legal subject, there is lots of case law that covers it, you would need someone with a good working knowledge of it or you'll need to trawl through case law. There must be cases that deal with whether internal works to the fabric of the building are accepted as being "good and tenanble repair".
I'll go back and read your post but is there any definition of the demise - it may say whether it includes plaster, window frames etc.
You can try to produce evidence that it was fire but your parents may have already said what you have said so blown that option. There is case law about whether smoke is fire and my recollection is that it's not.
There is hopefully a fallback position, their contents insurance will cover them for third party liability. They should go back to their insurers and tell them that the Landlord says they are responsible for the damage and see what they say.
Your parents should check whether they have legal expenses insurance. If they do they should be covered for a lawyer to investigate liability.
"Repair" is a huge legal subject, there is lots of case law that covers it, you would need someone with a good working knowledge of it or you'll need to trawl through case law. There must be cases that deal with whether internal works to the fabric of the building are accepted as being "good and tenanble repair".
I'll go back and read your post but is there any definition of the demise - it may say whether it includes plaster, window frames etc.
Edited by Piglet on Tuesday 11th March 08:31
Edited by Piglet on Tuesday 11th March 08:33
Can you look at the agreement again and see what it says about "the property" or "the demise" - there should be a paragraph that deals with what is actually let to them. It may just say "the property known as" or it may set out in more detail.
You say in your first post that major work such as replastering has been done by the Landlord - if you can demonstrate that the landlord has habitually taken responsibility for these type of areas it would indicate that it is the landlord's responsibilty BUT that doesn't really help if the buildings insurers have declined because it wasn't fire damage...
Having given this some thought, it seems better that your parents don't argue the toss about whether it is the landlord's responsibility, it's better that they just accept that they were negligent and therefore responsible for the damage, they should then look to the third party liabilty section of their contents policy to pick up the bill.
I think they should try to speak to someone sensible at their contents insurers - was a loss adjustor appointed to deal with the contents part of the claim? If so go back to him or her. If not they should write to the insurers saying that the Landlord is holding them responsible for the damage and asking that the insurers deal with it.
You say in your first post that major work such as replastering has been done by the Landlord - if you can demonstrate that the landlord has habitually taken responsibility for these type of areas it would indicate that it is the landlord's responsibilty BUT that doesn't really help if the buildings insurers have declined because it wasn't fire damage...
Having given this some thought, it seems better that your parents don't argue the toss about whether it is the landlord's responsibility, it's better that they just accept that they were negligent and therefore responsible for the damage, they should then look to the third party liabilty section of their contents policy to pick up the bill.
I think they should try to speak to someone sensible at their contents insurers - was a loss adjustor appointed to deal with the contents part of the claim? If so go back to him or her. If not they should write to the insurers saying that the Landlord is holding them responsible for the damage and asking that the insurers deal with it.
Piglet said:
Can you look at the agreement again and see what it says about "the property" or "the demise" - there should be a paragraph that deals with what is actually let to them. It may just say "the property known as" or it may set out in more detail.
Hi Piglet, Thanks for the constructive reply. Without the contract to hand I can't quote verbatim but it refers to just the address of the propery.Piglet said:
Having given this some thought, it seems better that your parents don't argue the toss about whether it is the landlord's responsibility, it's better that they just accept that they were negligent and therefore responsible for the damage, they should then look to the third party liabilty section of their contents policy to pick up the bill.
The 3rd party liability appears to have kicked in, but the claim limit is only 50% of the bill. The contents insurer has agreed the payment of this amount. Still leaves them shy of about £1700Piglet said:
I think they should try to speak to someone sensible at their contents insurers - was a loss adjustor appointed to deal with the contents part of the claim? If so go back to him or her. If not they should write to the insurers saying that the Landlord is holding them responsible for the damage and asking that the insurers deal with it.
Loss adjuster appointed and has viewed the damage, contents agreed on and 3rd party liability invoked. In retrospect I think that a previous poster has probably summed this up as being caught between 2 scenarios. The landlords building insurance doesn't cover accidental damage and the MiL insurance is insufficent for the 3rd party liability element. I guess this will get chalked up to experiance and the insurance will be reviewed!
Thank you for all the replies and comments. Most beneficial to get a neutral view on the subject.
apguy said:
The 3rd party liability appears to have kicked in, but the claim limit is only 50% of the bill. The contents insurer has agreed the payment of this amount. Still leaves them shy of about £1700
Are the insurers saying that there is "betterment" that they won't put the premises back in better condition than they were?
Piglet said:
apguy said:
The 3rd party liability appears to have kicked in, but the claim limit is only 50% of the bill. The contents insurer has agreed the payment of this amount. Still leaves them shy of about £1700
Why only 50%? If your parents were negligent and therefore liable then they are covered for the damage caused (up to the limit of the cover which will be in millions). What have the insurers actually said? Are the insurers saying that there is "betterment" that they won't put the premises back in better condition than they were?
Edited by apguy on Tuesday 11th March 14:38
Right. It would appear that the contents insurance have 2 sections:
1) Personal and Occupier’s liability – up to £2,000,000 plus legal costs
2) Tenant’s indemnity – up to 20% of the sum insured on Contents
And it would appear that the insurance company are using clause 2. 20% of sum insured to arrive at £2000 minus the excess, giving £1800.
I think this topic has now diverted onto an insurance issue and I will now need to find out what the difference between "Personal and Occupiers liability" and "Tenants indemnity" is!
1) Personal and Occupier’s liability – up to £2,000,000 plus legal costs
2) Tenant’s indemnity – up to 20% of the sum insured on Contents
And it would appear that the insurance company are using clause 2. 20% of sum insured to arrive at £2000 minus the excess, giving £1800.
I think this topic has now diverted onto an insurance issue and I will now need to find out what the difference between "Personal and Occupiers liability" and "Tenants indemnity" is!
Edited by apguy on Tuesday 11th March 15:14
Hmm interesting (and getting out of my area of knowledge!!)....occupiers liab0ility will rougly be their liablility to others who come onto the premises....so they leave their garden rake on the ground, the postman falls over it - that's occupiers liability.
Tenant's indemnity is not something I've come across (but I haven't worked in Insurance for a good few years)...you really need to see the full policy wording...
You need to try to kick into the personal liability but the policy wording may preclude this...
Have they got any other personal liability insurance that might cover them - what about bank accounts and the like - might be worth a look.
Otherwise you are back to the repair issue and trawling through case law to deal with what is and isn't tenantable repair.
Tenant's indemnity is not something I've come across (but I haven't worked in Insurance for a good few years)...you really need to see the full policy wording...
You need to try to kick into the personal liability but the policy wording may preclude this...
Have they got any other personal liability insurance that might cover them - what about bank accounts and the like - might be worth a look.
Otherwise you are back to the repair issue and trawling through case law to deal with what is and isn't tenantable repair.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff