Wasp removal...whose responsibility

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Wasp removal...whose responsibility

    Tenant has reported possible wasp nest at front of property apparently down a drain. The wasps were not there at the start of the tenancy two months ago. Who is responsible, tenant or landlord, for the removal of the wasps please?

    #2
    Two months is fairly short. I would do it.

    Are you sure they are wasps not bees?

    Comment


      #3
      I had a wasp nest by sky light in kitchen they kept coming back to same spot for 3 years, couldn't switch light on at night !

      LL wouldn't do anything, in end local council paid and sent LL the Bill, which they did pay in the End but cost them even more as if they had paid for it to be done in the 1st place...

      https://www.homeandgardeningideas.co...rom-returning/

      https://www.rentokil.co.uk/wasps/
      Thunderbirds are go

      Comment


        #4
        Why would the Council presume the LL was responsible - are they courts of contract law?

        Comment


          #5
          IMO, T is resp for eradicating insect infestation,.
          Most bee/wasps will die over winter, so I suggest T & LL could agree to share eradication after <date>.

          Comment


            #6
            As a wasps nest is not caused by anything the tenant has done so I would pay for it as the LL. Its not expensive & will create good will if you do it promptly rather than arguing about cost.

            Comment


              #7
              Had the same issue a few weeks ago.

              Bought some wasp killer powder for £8.00 and sorted it.

              Not worth the hassle for such a small common problem.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by jpucng62 View Post
                As a wasps nest is not caused by anything the tenant has done
                It is also not caused by anything the LL has done.

                Comment


                  #9
                  It is the tenant's responsibility. Wasps don't nest when they moved in 2 month's ago.

                  Roll over now and you will be changing their bog roll every time it runs out.

                  However....

                  For the sake of £35 for pest control, I'd sort it out, and then make it a huge deal of exactly who is responsible for what.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    We've had this three times. One on an empty property which the builders found and we dealt with and twice with good tenants in place. We sorted them both for the tenants ourselves. It costs hardly anything.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      But sets a precedent,
                      Pay for eradication but deduct cost from T deposit at end of T.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        certainly does and we're happy to set it. As we've all got different reasons for letting and tenants are a varied lot, not every landlord sets the same precedents ;-)

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by mariner View Post
                          Pay for eradication but deduct cost from T deposit at end of T.
                          You can only do that if there is an obligation on the tenant.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            and it is actually spelled out as such in the tenancy agreement (although that may be what you are implying here Lawcruncher). Because of the tenant fees ban, unless you have a clause that states that you can deduct from the deposit for expenses you incur because of T negligence, you cannot claim them.

                            Say, for example, you arranged for a tradesman to fix something and the T agreed to be there in advance but was not in when they arrived and you were charged for the tradesman's time. You cannot recoup this at all except from the deposit and only if the tenancy agreement stipulates as such.

                            A clause such as

                            The reasonable costs incurred in compensating the Landlord for, or for rectifying or remedying any major breach by the Tenant of the Tenant’s obligations under the Agreement, including those relating to the cleaning of the Premises and its Fixtures and Fittings, and contents.
                            should do it.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by tatemono View Post
                              Because of the tenant fees ban, unless you have a clause that states that you can deduct from the deposit for expenses you incur because of T negligence, you cannot claim them.

                              Say, for example, you arranged for a tradesman to fix something and the T agreed to be there in advance but was not in when they arrived and you were charged for the tradesman's time. You cannot recoup this at all except from the deposit and only if the tenancy agreement stipulates as such.
                              Sorry, but this isn't correct (unless you can show me where I've missed this in the legislation).

                              The Tenants Fees Act relates to payments demanded by a landlord or agent, not a claim for a loss outside the scope of a contract.
                              Otherwise, you couldn't claim the costs from a deposit either, regardless of the agreement wording.
                              Deposits are basically just a (pre-)payment mechanism, they're still subject to the tenants fees legislation.

                              In your example, you can't charge a fee or surcharge for the visit, but you can claim the cost you incur as a result of the tenant's action.
                              The tenant has agreed to something and the landlord incurs a loss due to the tenant's breach of that agreement, the cost (as long as it's mitigated and reasonable) is recoverable.

                              The clause quoted would benefit from the removal of the word "reasonable" and "major", which introduce an unhelpful ambiguity.
                              And it doesn't do anything but restrict the landlord in claims that they could make without it existing, so it's actually unhelpful overall.

                              A clause that any losses incurred in the value of the property beyond fair wear and tear may be deducted from the tenancy deposit might be helpful as clarity, but don't give the landlord any more right to deduct money from the deposit than if it didn't exist.


                              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X