Flooded Tenants
Discussion
Close friends were flooded out of their home back in July. They lost quite a bit of stuff as the ground floor kitchen/lounge/hall was under 4 - 5 inches of water (the cause was heavy rain coupled with a blocked/buried/poorly maintained drain in the driveway). There was a bit of too'ing and fro'ing at the time but the upshot was they rented another place on a month by month (temp apartment) after two weeks in a hotel and carried on paying the rent as per the AST (managment are clearly useless as it's an AST in the name of LTD company!) as they were informed by landlord, agent etc. that they had no choice as the upstairs was still livable. As they were contents only they got no support from the insurers with regards the cost of living elsewhere and have run up about 5K of costs in total from it.
The agents contacted them three weeks ago to ask about the renewing the tenancy and obviously they declined stating the fact that they hadn't been in the property for 12 weeks and it was flooded. The Landlord then claimed he had informed one of them via text message that it was habitable again during the first week of August, this was the first they had heard of this. They just want out, good money after bad etc. but can anyone offer some feedback on where they stand on this with regards claiming back some of the rent paid etc. whilst the property was uninhabitable? The upstairs was dry but as I understand it there was no power downstairs, so no kitchen and dehumidifiers going 24/7. We all suspect the "told you by text" (whilst still having e-mail addresses, work phones etc. for the both of them) is an attempt to limit any liability.....
I've had a look through the AST and there is the usual landlord responsible for exterior, walls, drains section and the drain which was contributory to this, if not the cause has since been cleared and had covers installed. To be clear they're not shouting for "compensayshun" here, just an idea of if they should have been paying the rent whilst the downstairs was a swimming pool?
The agents contacted them three weeks ago to ask about the renewing the tenancy and obviously they declined stating the fact that they hadn't been in the property for 12 weeks and it was flooded. The Landlord then claimed he had informed one of them via text message that it was habitable again during the first week of August, this was the first they had heard of this. They just want out, good money after bad etc. but can anyone offer some feedback on where they stand on this with regards claiming back some of the rent paid etc. whilst the property was uninhabitable? The upstairs was dry but as I understand it there was no power downstairs, so no kitchen and dehumidifiers going 24/7. We all suspect the "told you by text" (whilst still having e-mail addresses, work phones etc. for the both of them) is an attempt to limit any liability.....
I've had a look through the AST and there is the usual landlord responsible for exterior, walls, drains section and the drain which was contributory to this, if not the cause has since been cleared and had covers installed. To be clear they're not shouting for "compensayshun" here, just an idea of if they should have been paying the rent whilst the downstairs was a swimming pool?
What does the AST say? I've just picked up a fairly standard (but long-form) AST here and it specifically states that rent will be suspended while the property is unfit for occupation and use due to damage by an insured risk.
Unless something similar is in the AST though, rent continues to be payable.
Unless something similar is in the AST though, rent continues to be payable.
Jobbo said:
What does the AST say? I've just picked up a fairly standard (but long-form) AST here and it specifically states that rent will be suspended while the property is unfit for occupation and use due to damage by an insured risk.
Unless something similar is in the AST though, rent continues to be payable.
I believe there isn't anything similar in there. Any water (no pun intended) in the fact they've taken a company let via a LTD company but the management agency have used an AST? I always thought you couldn't do this, or that was what was explained to me years ago when I had a BTL that I rented to a company. Unless something similar is in the AST though, rent continues to be payable.
a Ltd Company can let a property as the landlord to a private tenant.
As the other poster has said normally in the TA there will be a clause as to what happens if the property is uninhabitable.
Even if there is not I would think that if it is uninhabitable due a major flood then the tenancy is frustrated. You wont be liable for the rent but you have to move out. Some landlords Building insurance will pay to rehouse you provided you keep paying the rent some wont. But as mentioned if its uninhabitable then the tenancy is frustrated and ends.
As the other poster has said normally in the TA there will be a clause as to what happens if the property is uninhabitable.
Even if there is not I would think that if it is uninhabitable due a major flood then the tenancy is frustrated. You wont be liable for the rent but you have to move out. Some landlords Building insurance will pay to rehouse you provided you keep paying the rent some wont. But as mentioned if its uninhabitable then the tenancy is frustrated and ends.
poppopbangbang said:
Jobbo said:
What does the AST say? I've just picked up a fairly standard (but long-form) AST here and it specifically states that rent will be suspended while the property is unfit for occupation and use due to damage by an insured risk.
Unless something similar is in the AST though, rent continues to be payable.
I believe there isn't anything similar in there. Any water (no pun intended) in the fact they've taken a company let via a LTD company but the management agency have used an AST? I always thought you couldn't do this, or that was what was explained to me years ago when I had a BTL that I rented to a company. Unless something similar is in the AST though, rent continues to be payable.
There is nothing to prevent the landlord from being a Ltd company though. So have your friends rented as individuals or not? If it is the latter, why have they done this?
For one thing, if it is a letting to a company, due to it not being a lawful AST the Deposit Protection Scheme provisions do not apply.
There is the potential for things to get very awkward for both sides here. Get professional advice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff