What happens if a landlord has a problem of a major water leak within a rental property? Imagine the buy-to-let property in question was a top floor flat.
The result was that damage had not only been caused to the carpet in their flat but also to the carpet of the tenanted flat below.
In addition to the carpet, the ceiling in the flat below had also been damaged resulting in the plaster bubbling up and falling off.
The property investor who owned the downstairs flat, the landlord was told by him that the structural damage to the flat below was covered by their buildings insurance but meeting the cost of a new carpet would be the upstairs landlord's responsibility.
Who actually is responsible for the repairs and which landlords insurance policy should be claimed against? Legal responsibilities of the landlord Firstly before getting into the details of the landlord insurance policy a landlord should be clear about their responsibility for maintenance of their buy-to-let property under the terms of any tenancy agreement.
One of the most important pieces of legislation governing repairs is that contained within Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and which applies to leases or tenancy agreement granted on or after 24th October 1961 for less than seven years.
The vast majority of Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements are periodic or for terms of less than seven years and therefore Section 11 applies to these tenancy agreements.
The landlords implied obligations under Section 11 are: * To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling (including drains, gutters and external pipes) to fulfil the tenancy agreement.
* To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling for the supply of water, gas, electricity and sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences) to fulfil the tenancy agreement.
* To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling for room and water heating to fulfil the tenancy agreement.
In the example given above the landlord would be responsible for the repair of the ceiling as it is part of the structure of the building.
The reality is that the ultimate responsibility may not lie with the owner of the leasehold flat.
This is because the landlord themselves may only be a leaseholder and it could well be that it is their landlord, the freeholder or any appointed management company that will ultimately be responsible for carrying out the repair work.
Under s.
11(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is not responsible for works or repairs for things which the tenant has a duty to use in a tenant-like manner such as carpets or decoration.
However, the exact responsibilities may be set out in any explicit terms contained within the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement.
Therefore, unless otherwise stated in the Tenancy Agreement; if the water damage resulted in the carpet or decoration becoming shabby it is the tenant who is responsible for the repair.
The reality though is that when faced with a shabby property and an uncooperative landlord most tenants will ultimately give notice and leave.
Who pays? The next step for the landlord is to establish who pays for the repairs in both flats.
For a start any landlord insurance on the (upstairs flat) will only cover damage to the landlords flat unless there is block insurance scheme in place.
This is likely to be the case where a freeholder and a management company exist who arrange the building insurance for the entire residential block and then recharge each leaseholder for their share of the insurance costs.
Contents insurance is the responsibility of the individual flat owner or leaseholder.
Therefore, providing the landlord has contents cover they will be able to claim against the damage caused to the carpet in their top floor flat.
The landlord is likely to have liability cover included in their buy-to-let insurance policy, but this is only if it can be proved that they were legally negligent.
This means that under the scenario under discussion, the only way the landlord of the upstairs flat would have been legally negligent is if the downstairs flat owner "officially" warned the top floor landlord that they had a leak (or something that may cause a potential leak) that could damage the downstairs flat.
Then, following this, the top floor landlord ignored this warning and then the leak occurred.
In practice, there is almost no chance of this happening as by the time a leak is discovered, the likelihood is that the damage has already been caused.
This is therefore classed as an accident as far as the buy-to-let insurer is concerned and therefore would not be the top floor landlord's fault.
Therefore, the property investor who owns the downstairs flat has several options.
Firstly, depending on the terms of the tenancy they could insist on their tenant paying for the repair.
The tenant if insured could claim on their contents insurance.
It may well be that the insurance company that provides the buildings cover also includes cover for floor coverings such as carpets within the policy.
This is the case under the policy provided by Alan Boswell's Insurance.
Therefore, where a residential block insurance policy is in place the costs of both carpets could be claimed for together along with the costs of repair to the ceiling.
This would have the benefit for both landlords of not having to get into an argument with the tenant about who is responsible for the costs and then for one of the parties to have to make a separate claim.
Where this extent of cover is not in place then the property investor may decide to claim off their own buy-to-let insurance.
In this case the property investor and owner of the downstairs flat is not likely to be happy, but it is down to them to pursue their insurer for further advice.
Their insurer could ultimately pursue the top floor landlord's buy-to-let insurer under the negligence clause.
The reality is unless the amounts are large and the case clear cut that it is very unlikely to happen.
Landlords should always remember that a conciliatory approach is likely to produce a more effective long-term solution than an aggressive confrontational one.
The result was that damage had not only been caused to the carpet in their flat but also to the carpet of the tenanted flat below.
In addition to the carpet, the ceiling in the flat below had also been damaged resulting in the plaster bubbling up and falling off.
The property investor who owned the downstairs flat, the landlord was told by him that the structural damage to the flat below was covered by their buildings insurance but meeting the cost of a new carpet would be the upstairs landlord's responsibility.
Who actually is responsible for the repairs and which landlords insurance policy should be claimed against? Legal responsibilities of the landlord Firstly before getting into the details of the landlord insurance policy a landlord should be clear about their responsibility for maintenance of their buy-to-let property under the terms of any tenancy agreement.
One of the most important pieces of legislation governing repairs is that contained within Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and which applies to leases or tenancy agreement granted on or after 24th October 1961 for less than seven years.
The vast majority of Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements are periodic or for terms of less than seven years and therefore Section 11 applies to these tenancy agreements.
The landlords implied obligations under Section 11 are: * To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling (including drains, gutters and external pipes) to fulfil the tenancy agreement.
* To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling for the supply of water, gas, electricity and sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences) to fulfil the tenancy agreement.
* To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling for room and water heating to fulfil the tenancy agreement.
In the example given above the landlord would be responsible for the repair of the ceiling as it is part of the structure of the building.
The reality is that the ultimate responsibility may not lie with the owner of the leasehold flat.
This is because the landlord themselves may only be a leaseholder and it could well be that it is their landlord, the freeholder or any appointed management company that will ultimately be responsible for carrying out the repair work.
Under s.
11(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is not responsible for works or repairs for things which the tenant has a duty to use in a tenant-like manner such as carpets or decoration.
However, the exact responsibilities may be set out in any explicit terms contained within the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement.
Therefore, unless otherwise stated in the Tenancy Agreement; if the water damage resulted in the carpet or decoration becoming shabby it is the tenant who is responsible for the repair.
The reality though is that when faced with a shabby property and an uncooperative landlord most tenants will ultimately give notice and leave.
Who pays? The next step for the landlord is to establish who pays for the repairs in both flats.
For a start any landlord insurance on the (upstairs flat) will only cover damage to the landlords flat unless there is block insurance scheme in place.
This is likely to be the case where a freeholder and a management company exist who arrange the building insurance for the entire residential block and then recharge each leaseholder for their share of the insurance costs.
Contents insurance is the responsibility of the individual flat owner or leaseholder.
Therefore, providing the landlord has contents cover they will be able to claim against the damage caused to the carpet in their top floor flat.
The landlord is likely to have liability cover included in their buy-to-let insurance policy, but this is only if it can be proved that they were legally negligent.
This means that under the scenario under discussion, the only way the landlord of the upstairs flat would have been legally negligent is if the downstairs flat owner "officially" warned the top floor landlord that they had a leak (or something that may cause a potential leak) that could damage the downstairs flat.
Then, following this, the top floor landlord ignored this warning and then the leak occurred.
In practice, there is almost no chance of this happening as by the time a leak is discovered, the likelihood is that the damage has already been caused.
This is therefore classed as an accident as far as the buy-to-let insurer is concerned and therefore would not be the top floor landlord's fault.
Therefore, the property investor who owns the downstairs flat has several options.
Firstly, depending on the terms of the tenancy they could insist on their tenant paying for the repair.
The tenant if insured could claim on their contents insurance.
It may well be that the insurance company that provides the buildings cover also includes cover for floor coverings such as carpets within the policy.
This is the case under the policy provided by Alan Boswell's Insurance.
Therefore, where a residential block insurance policy is in place the costs of both carpets could be claimed for together along with the costs of repair to the ceiling.
This would have the benefit for both landlords of not having to get into an argument with the tenant about who is responsible for the costs and then for one of the parties to have to make a separate claim.
Where this extent of cover is not in place then the property investor may decide to claim off their own buy-to-let insurance.
In this case the property investor and owner of the downstairs flat is not likely to be happy, but it is down to them to pursue their insurer for further advice.
Their insurer could ultimately pursue the top floor landlord's buy-to-let insurer under the negligence clause.
The reality is unless the amounts are large and the case clear cut that it is very unlikely to happen.
Landlords should always remember that a conciliatory approach is likely to produce a more effective long-term solution than an aggressive confrontational one.
SHARE
