Landlord didnt tell us that our rented flat has unsafe cladding.

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

    Landlord didnt tell us that our rented flat has unsafe cladding.

    My partner has recently moved into a rented flat in a complex after visiting a show flat last year. There was a major fire in the building within the last week which destroyed one flat and rendered a few others uninhabitable. When I visited her last week I immediately noticed that the building has 24/7 fire wardens patrolling the premises.

    After looking up the building online, I discovered that the building uses Aluglaze infill panels of the same type used in Grenfell. When my partner was shown around the building, she was not made aware of this. This is also not stated anywhere in the contract she signed, or any supplementary material.

    Considering the circumstances I am extremely worried about her living there. Especially considering that when I visited no fire blanket was installed in the flat, and the landlord refuses to PAT test the appliances.

    From my understanding, this is a breach of S10 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and S4 of the Defective Premises Act, as a misleading omission has been made. Although I am unsure on whether the landlord has an obligation to declare this information, or if this should have been asked by my partner.

    Do we legally have the right to unwind the contract and receive our money back due to this, and if so, would we likely have to take court action to secure this?

    Many thanks for your help.



    #2
    I do not know the answer to your questions but others will be along soon i am sure...... personally i would not have signed on the dotted line if i had been told., not a chance.

    Comment


      #3
      Your partner has a limited right to unwind an agreement (the amount of time depends where the agreement was signed).
      It is probably a misleading omission and you would need to go to court if the landlord doesn't agree that it is.

      I don't see how anyone could sit in court (even an informal property court) and try and argue that not telling the prospective tenant about cladding and the need for fire marshalls would not be "likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise"
      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


        #4
        Have you talked to the agent you dealt with on surrendering the Tenancy? I would start with that, then the other organisations if you have no satisfaction.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ash72 View Post
          Have you talked to the agent you dealt with on surrendering the Tenancy? I would start with that, then the other organisations if you have no satisfaction.
          I would prefer not to surrender the tenancy, as I assume I would be liable to lose my deposit and the initial rent payments?

          Comment


            #6
            Landlord didn't tell us that our rented flat has unsafe cladding.
            Sadly the case for all those in Grenfell tower...
            I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Bibdid View Post

              I would prefer not to surrender the tenancy, as I assume I would be liable to lose my deposit and the initial rent payments?
              You should lose nothing, the LL clearly knows the inherent dangers his property has and although i do feel a great deal of sympathy for all LL's and owners of such flats, renting it out to someone and not telling them is out of order, you have been deceived and as such no financial loss should be yours to take. There appears to be a distinct lack of honour here.

              As an aside, all that I have said above also applies to the leaseholders of such flats who appear to have taken the hit when it comes to the costs involved in fixing the cladding mess...... no honour there as well with the developers, but two wrongs do not make a right, the LL should have told you.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Bibdid View Post
                I would prefer not to surrender the tenancy, as I assume I would be liable to lose my deposit and the initial rent payments?
                If the contract is unwound, the payments are also reversed.

                And why have you paid your partner's deposit and rent?
                Not that it's any of my business, but your partner can recover it, and you don't appear to be a party to the agreement.

                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


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  If the contract is unwound, the payments are also reversed.

                  And why have you paid your partner's deposit and rent?
                  Not that it's any of my business, but your partner can recover it, and you don't appear to be a party to the agreement.
                  Ah I see.

                  My mistake, I mean her deposit and rent!



                  Thank you all for the replies. I will speak to a solicitor briefly in the upcoming days and respond with more information.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Sounds like you are now living there too. You "immediately noticed" 24/7 fire wardens but your partner did not see these when viewing the flat? They didnt notice cladding and check? If I was the landlord I would argure the tenant knew this before signing the contract. Is it more than 90 days since the contract was signed - there may be a right to reduced rent/ damages but not a right to unwind.

                    I guess a court could reduce rent to zero - and I cant see any deposit scheme allowing a landlord to keep a deposit if the tenancy is surrendered - but it's not as clear cut as previous posters suggest, especially if fire wardens were present when viewing.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Depending on the size of the block of flats it may not be totally obvious that it has fire wardens, in the same way that most Police Officers never actually see a burglar climbing out of a window.... it's right time, right place. I would say though that for these ' blighted ' flats it should state in the AST that they are subject to an ongoing waking watch, or something which highlights in writing the inherent dangers of renting/living in such a home...... it should not be down to if you '' noticed '' some Fireman Sam type walking around when you viewed looking for signs of smoke !!! It is simply too important for that.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by buzzard1994 View Post
                        Sounds like you are now living there too. You "immediately noticed" 24/7 fire wardens but your partner did not see these when viewing the flat? They didnt notice cladding and check? If I was the landlord I would argure the tenant knew this before signing the contract. Is it more than 90 days since the contract was signed - there may be a right to reduced rent/ damages but not a right to unwind.

                        I guess a court could reduce rent to zero - and I cant see any deposit scheme allowing a landlord to keep a deposit if the tenancy is surrendered - but it's not as clear cut as previous posters suggest, especially if fire wardens were present when viewing.
                        I am not living there yet. I have an option to add myself to the tenancy agreement but am hesitant for obvious reasons. The complex has over 300 apartments, so I'm not surprised that my partner potentially missed the fire wardens in the brief time she spent at the show-flat. I imagine that most prospective tenants would hope that potential cladding issues are stipulated in the contract, although this is clearly not the case!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          No legal requirement for PAT Testing - is it a furnished flat as PAT stands for Portable Appliance Testing which are only likely to be in a furnished property.

                          To be honest - AS LONG AS - these Fire Marshalls are actively on duty 24/7 then your property is probably safer than most houses in the UK.
                          My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                            To be honest - AS LONG AS - these Fire Marshalls are actively on duty 24/7 then your property is probably safer than most houses in the UK.
                            I would agree with this actually..... but ....... the choice should have been for the prospective tenant to make that decision given the relevant facts.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Perhaps.

                              I would consider that the LL has done everything they possibly can to mitigate the risk.

                              Im surprised that someone moving in to a large building with so many flats would not ask questions or proceed with caution anyway.

                              Should a landlord advise a family that the road outside their proposed rental has a high number of traffic accidents, perhaps advise that the local schools are full and their kids need to get a 45 min bus or taxi to/from school, maybe the doctors and dentists are not accepting new patients.

                              We have gas certificates and electrical inspections to mitigate risk, fire marshalls are another example of it.

                              My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X