responsibility of land lords re flood damage
Discussion
We have a local indian takeaway and they have just had a new laminate floor fitted , however due to some heavy rain , the whole building flooded , about 8" water so flooring , skirting ruined etc.,
approximate damage to replace with water proof vinyl and skirting is around 2k , The land lord has to been very unhelpful , according to the estate agent ....quote " well you fitted the floor therefore it belongs to you !!!, and you have £1000 excess insurance policy ( part of the land lords policy ) .
It seems as though they are royally trying to shaft the guy , i had a brief look at his tenancy agreement , it does mention an excess of £1000 but for personal belongings
he has to maintain the property , so as a good tenant hes replaced the floor ....only to have it ruined , i thought landlords were responible for flood damage ?? and a floor is a fixture so surely down to the land lord to replace , any legal bods offer advise
his letters to the land lord have drawn a blank , is there an official letter template he can use
much appreciated
cheers
surveyor said:
It all depends on the wording.
In general commercial leases are far less protective of tenants and I would not be at all surprised to find that this is the tenants responsibility.
This.In general commercial leases are far less protective of tenants and I would not be at all surprised to find that this is the tenants responsibility.
If it is a full repairing and insuring lease they are probably up the creek without a paddle.
Read the lease documents carefully.
surveyor said:
It all depends on the wording.
In general commercial leases are far less protective of tenants and I would not be at all surprised to find that this is the tenants responsibility.
This ^^^In general commercial leases are far less protective of tenants and I would not be at all surprised to find that this is the tenants responsibility.
We rent a retail premises and one of the clauses in our lease is any damage caused to the building due to burglary is our responsibility.
When we got broken into in February, they went through the front window (7ft by 5ft) with a sledge hammer and smashed the frame when climbing in, ended up costing us just under £1000 to sort as we only had content insurance.
The lease will have the answer to who is responsible.
CoreyDog said:
surveyor said:
It all depends on the wording.
In general commercial leases are far less protective of tenants and I would not be at all surprised to find that this is the tenants responsibility.
This ^^^In general commercial leases are far less protective of tenants and I would not be at all surprised to find that this is the tenants responsibility.
We rent a retail premises and one of the clauses in our lease is any damage caused to the building due to burglary is our responsibility.
When we got broken into in February, they went through the front window (7ft by 5ft) with a sledge hammer and smashed the frame when climbing in, ended up costing us just under £1000 to sort as we only had content insurance.
The lease will have the answer to who is responsible.
Once the floor is fitted it becomes part of the building and should be covered under the buildings insurance.
Under most normal commercial leases the landlord arranges buildings insurance and recharges the premiums to the tenant.
The tenant should make an insurance claim under the buildings insurance policy provided that the damage will cost more than £1,000 to fix.
Under most normal commercial leases the landlord arranges buildings insurance and recharges the premiums to the tenant.
The tenant should make an insurance claim under the buildings insurance policy provided that the damage will cost more than £1,000 to fix.
some common misunderstandings in this post and hope I can help.
Most (not all) commercial leases require the lessee to pay the lessor's cost of insuring the buildings.
The buildings insurance taken out by the lessor insures the lessors building - NOT - things added to that building or contents of the building belonging to the lessee.
Almost invariably lessees make - with lessor approval/agreement - alterations to the building to make it best suited for their (the lessees) useage of it but those alterations are more often than not owned by the lessee and are NOT part of the building insured by the lessor - instead they should be insured by the lessee (who owns the alterations) as TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS and then if they are damaged by an insured cause the lessee claims under their tenants improvements insurance for them.
Sadly all too often no one considers any of this until after the event when it is far too late !
The scenario referred to by the OP is not uncommon - typically the freeholder (lessor) owns the building but the occupier (lessee) fits out the building to suit their business needs and should insure their contents AND their fit out items - eg flooring /kitchen fitout /extraction system etc etc .
In the event of a disaster the lessor claims from their insurance for rebuilding their property as it was (the bits they own) and the lessee claims from their own insurance to refit the rebuilt building as it was for their business - if you imagine a new bare shell shop unit in a modern mall - the insurance for the building rebuilds the mall and the bare shell shop unit - the insurance taken out for the occupying business then pays to refit the unit as it was - eg floor finishes - lighting - shop front - display shelving etc etc - hope this helps
Most (not all) commercial leases require the lessee to pay the lessor's cost of insuring the buildings.
The buildings insurance taken out by the lessor insures the lessors building - NOT - things added to that building or contents of the building belonging to the lessee.
Almost invariably lessees make - with lessor approval/agreement - alterations to the building to make it best suited for their (the lessees) useage of it but those alterations are more often than not owned by the lessee and are NOT part of the building insured by the lessor - instead they should be insured by the lessee (who owns the alterations) as TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS and then if they are damaged by an insured cause the lessee claims under their tenants improvements insurance for them.
Sadly all too often no one considers any of this until after the event when it is far too late !
The scenario referred to by the OP is not uncommon - typically the freeholder (lessor) owns the building but the occupier (lessee) fits out the building to suit their business needs and should insure their contents AND their fit out items - eg flooring /kitchen fitout /extraction system etc etc .
In the event of a disaster the lessor claims from their insurance for rebuilding their property as it was (the bits they own) and the lessee claims from their own insurance to refit the rebuilt building as it was for their business - if you imagine a new bare shell shop unit in a modern mall - the insurance for the building rebuilds the mall and the bare shell shop unit - the insurance taken out for the occupying business then pays to refit the unit as it was - eg floor finishes - lighting - shop front - display shelving etc etc - hope this helps
999PJR said:
some common misunderstandings in this post and hope I can help.
Most (not all) commercial leases require the lessee to pay the lessor's cost of insuring the buildings.
The buildings insurance taken out by the lessor insures the lessors building - NOT - things added to that building or contents of the building belonging to the lessee.
Almost invariably lessees make - with lessor approval/agreement - alterations to the building to make it best suited for their (the lessees) useage of it but those alterations are more often than not owned by the lessee and are NOT part of the building insured by the lessor - instead they should be insured by the lessee (who owns the alterations) as TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS and then if they are damaged by an insured cause the lessee claims under their tenants improvements insurance for them.
Sadly all too often no one considers any of this until after the event when it is far too late !
The scenario referred to by the OP is not uncommon - typically the freeholder (lessor) owns the building but the occupier (lessee) fits out the building to suit their business needs and should insure their contents AND their fit out items - eg flooring /kitchen fitout /extraction system etc etc .
In the event of a disaster the lessor claims from their insurance for rebuilding their property as it was (the bits they own) and the lessee claims from their own insurance to refit the rebuilt building as it was for their business - if you imagine a new bare shell shop unit in a modern mall - the insurance for the building rebuilds the mall and the bare shell shop unit - the insurance taken out for the occupying business then pays to refit the unit as it was - eg floor finishes - lighting - shop front - display shelving etc etc - hope this helps
That reflects our experience down to a tee. We rent out two floors of a building in Central Manchester. One of the water pipes in the ceiling void leaked and caused several thousand quids worth of damage. The LL had to pay for repairs to the pipework but we had to pay for new ceiling tiles, and carpet tiles.Most (not all) commercial leases require the lessee to pay the lessor's cost of insuring the buildings.
The buildings insurance taken out by the lessor insures the lessors building - NOT - things added to that building or contents of the building belonging to the lessee.
Almost invariably lessees make - with lessor approval/agreement - alterations to the building to make it best suited for their (the lessees) useage of it but those alterations are more often than not owned by the lessee and are NOT part of the building insured by the lessor - instead they should be insured by the lessee (who owns the alterations) as TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS and then if they are damaged by an insured cause the lessee claims under their tenants improvements insurance for them.
Sadly all too often no one considers any of this until after the event when it is far too late !
The scenario referred to by the OP is not uncommon - typically the freeholder (lessor) owns the building but the occupier (lessee) fits out the building to suit their business needs and should insure their contents AND their fit out items - eg flooring /kitchen fitout /extraction system etc etc .
In the event of a disaster the lessor claims from their insurance for rebuilding their property as it was (the bits they own) and the lessee claims from their own insurance to refit the rebuilt building as it was for their business - if you imagine a new bare shell shop unit in a modern mall - the insurance for the building rebuilds the mall and the bare shell shop unit - the insurance taken out for the occupying business then pays to refit the unit as it was - eg floor finishes - lighting - shop front - display shelving etc etc - hope this helps
ETA on a slightly related matter we invested about £500k on interior fit-out. It was basically a bare shell when we moved in. At the last lease renewal the landlord wanted to charge us £200k dilapidations for "restoring the building back to its original condition".
Countdown said:
999PJR said:
some common misunderstandings in this post and hope I can help.
Most (not all) commercial leases require the lessee to pay the lessor's cost of insuring the buildings.
The buildings insurance taken out by the lessor insures the lessors building - NOT - things added to that building or contents of the building belonging to the lessee.
Almost invariably lessees make - with lessor approval/agreement - alterations to the building to make it best suited for their (the lessees) useage of it but those alterations are more often than not owned by the lessee and are NOT part of the building insured by the lessor - instead they should be insured by the lessee (who owns the alterations) as TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS and then if they are damaged by an insured cause the lessee claims under their tenants improvements insurance for them.
Sadly all too often no one considers any of this until after the event when it is far too late !
The scenario referred to by the OP is not uncommon - typically the freeholder (lessor) owns the building but the occupier (lessee) fits out the building to suit their business needs and should insure their contents AND their fit out items - eg flooring /kitchen fitout /extraction system etc etc .
In the event of a disaster the lessor claims from their insurance for rebuilding their property as it was (the bits they own) and the lessee claims from their own insurance to refit the rebuilt building as it was for their business - if you imagine a new bare shell shop unit in a modern mall - the insurance for the building rebuilds the mall and the bare shell shop unit - the insurance taken out for the occupying business then pays to refit the unit as it was - eg floor finishes - lighting - shop front - display shelving etc etc - hope this helps
That reflects our experience down to a tee. We rent out two floors of a building in Central Manchester. One of the water pipes in the ceiling void leaked and caused several thousand quids worth of damage. The LL had to pay for repairs to the pipework but we had to pay for new ceiling tiles, and carpet tiles.Most (not all) commercial leases require the lessee to pay the lessor's cost of insuring the buildings.
The buildings insurance taken out by the lessor insures the lessors building - NOT - things added to that building or contents of the building belonging to the lessee.
Almost invariably lessees make - with lessor approval/agreement - alterations to the building to make it best suited for their (the lessees) useage of it but those alterations are more often than not owned by the lessee and are NOT part of the building insured by the lessor - instead they should be insured by the lessee (who owns the alterations) as TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS and then if they are damaged by an insured cause the lessee claims under their tenants improvements insurance for them.
Sadly all too often no one considers any of this until after the event when it is far too late !
The scenario referred to by the OP is not uncommon - typically the freeholder (lessor) owns the building but the occupier (lessee) fits out the building to suit their business needs and should insure their contents AND their fit out items - eg flooring /kitchen fitout /extraction system etc etc .
In the event of a disaster the lessor claims from their insurance for rebuilding their property as it was (the bits they own) and the lessee claims from their own insurance to refit the rebuilt building as it was for their business - if you imagine a new bare shell shop unit in a modern mall - the insurance for the building rebuilds the mall and the bare shell shop unit - the insurance taken out for the occupying business then pays to refit the unit as it was - eg floor finishes - lighting - shop front - display shelving etc etc - hope this helps
ETA on a slightly related matter we invested about £500k on interior fit-out. It was basically a bare shell when we moved in. At the last lease renewal the landlord wanted to charge us £200k dilapidations for "restoring the building back to its original condition".
thanks
Somewhatfoolish said:
DBSV8 said:
not really the labour charges were very low , he could simply specify a higher grade to recoup his loses
Erm, unless he actually pays the contractor the increased fee it's blatant fraud, surely? Somewhatfoolish says.
FazerBoy said:
Once the floor is fitted it becomes part of the building and should be covered under the buildings insurance.
That's true if you own the building and the floor. But if a tenant fits a floor, or partitioning, or racking, or a mezzanine, or any other structural change that they pay for, they need to insure this under contents as tenant's improvements, which attracts a lower rate that general contents due to the lack of theft risk. FazerBoy said:
Once the floor is fitted it becomes part of the building and should be covered under the buildings insurance.
In commercial policies the item is usually worded as "The building, including landlord's fixtures and fittings ."As Twig says, the Occupier's contents policy would have an item for "Tenant's Improvements and interior decorations..."
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff