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

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

  • buzzard1994
    replied
    The Consumer Protection legislation gives you 90 days to unwind after a service has been delivered, so I believe it would give 90 days to unwind a rental contract. After that time there is still a right to damages, apparently they start at 25% off. So the real question is whether a court would agree the landlord should have told the tenant.

    If I was the landlord I wouldnt want to risk a court case and a possible requirement to tell all future possible tenants so if the tenant agreed not to claim a refund on the rent and give a reasonable period of notice I'd let them leave and not try to keep any of the deposit for rent. If the tenant wanted to go to court I'd fight it, nothing much to lose then.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Ted.E.Bear I think there's an issue when the service is a residential lease, because once the tenant has moved in, the right being contracted has fully exercised, which means it can't be unwound.
    In this case, if the tenant had entered into the contract and then declined to move in, they could unwind it.

    But I could easily be wrong - the legislation is clearly meant to give the consumer significant rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ted.E.Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    You only get a short window to unwind a contract, 90 days is way too long.
    90 days comes from the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...regulation/27E

    (1) A consumer has the right to unwind in respect of a business to consumer contract if the consumer indicates to the trader that the consumer rejects the product, and does so—

    (a)within the relevant period, and

    (b)at a time when the product is capable of being rejected.

    (2) An indication under paragraph (1) may be something that the consumer says or does, but it must be clear.

    (3) In paragraph (1)(a) “the relevant period” means the period of 90 days beginning with the later of—

    (a)the day on which the consumer enters into the contract, and

    (b)the relevant day.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    You only get a short window to unwind a contract, 90 days is way too long.

    Leave a comment:


  • buzzard1994
    replied
    Havent had an answer about how long the tenant has been living there.

    I imagine we all agree that this is something that would put a tenant off renting the property - but so do noisy neighbours and a landlord is unlikely to tell you about them. A tenant has to be expected to take some responsibility for using their eyes and asking questions. Tenant could see cladding, tenant could have asked a straight question. If lied to that is a separate issue.

    If the tenant has been living there more than 90 days they have had ample chance to see the fire wardens or hear about them from other tenants. If they ask to surrender the tenancy on the grounds that they were not informed of a problem fair enough and I cant see any deposit scheme saying the landlord can keep the deposit for rent. But getting back any rent they have paid - that seems unreasonable to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson01
    replied
    I am not saying that we should disclose all manner of exterior ' issues ' to prospective tenants, aka, lousy street lighting etc..... that is totally outside of the remit of that LL, The combustible cladding is not, it is attached to the whole building ! Not 100 yards away or on a restaurant down the road, it is where that poor tenant is living. It is material and the LL has simply pulled the wool over the tenants eyes, they knew it was there (they will be paying mad money for service charges), and should have told anyone who came viewing. I can see more of this happening as this cladding issue rolls on, the govt will predictably do bugger all so the poor leaseholders are between a rock and a hard place, but passing on part of that pain to a new person (tenant) is not the way forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • landlord-man
    replied
    I guess there's every chance a prospective tenant can claim never to have heard of Grenfell nor the near constant media coverage since.

    There is the saying - buyer beware (avoided the Latin) - which has been in existence for a few years, but applies equally today.

    Research, research, research - and not just the price and number of bedrooms.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
    Sorry, but people need to consider the decisions they make in life, not expect others to do everything for them all the time.

    Or maybe we do need to extend the nanny state further.
    The nanny state has already been extended.
    I'm not saying whether I think the law is right or not, I'm just referring to it.

    A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
    (a)the commercial practice omits material information,
    (b)the commercial practice hides material information,
    (c)the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
    (d)the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
    and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.
    ...
    “material information” means—
    (a)the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision; and
    So, in your examples, probably no to the reviews and yes to the street lights.

    Would an "average consumer" be sufficiently concerned about flammable cladding to decide not to rent a flat in the building.
    I'd imagine an average consumer might consider it if the property was cheaper than otherwise and the fire marshalls were going to be there.
    But I do think that not telling someone at all is "misleading".

    Most of the people involved in putting flammable cladding onto these blocks of flats seem to be claiming that there was no way of knowing they were fire propellant rather than fire resistant, so it's hard to expect a prospective tenant to know that.

    Leave a comment:


  • landlord-man
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    If these are factors which are not normal and might materially affect someone's decision to proceed, yes.


    So where do you draw the line?

    Sorry, the local restaurants all have lousy tripadvisor ratings?

    The streets lights outside the small room upstairs are so bright that blackout curtains dont even block it.

    Sorry, but people need to consider the decisions they make in life, not expect others to do everything for them all the time.

    Or maybe we do need to extend the nanny state further.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
    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
    If these are factors which are not normal and might materially affect someone's decision to proceed, yes.



    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson01
    replied
    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post

    We have gas certificates and electrical inspections to mitigate risk, fire marshalls are another example of it.
    The vast majority of residential dwellings in this country have mains gas and mains electricity...... there are far fewer that have combustable cladding on the outside of the dwelling, which then greatly increases the risk of a fatality should a fire start. I do not consider fire marshals the same as an EICR or Gas safety cert, they are totally different. The two former i accept, the latter i do not.

    Leave a comment:


  • landlord-man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson01
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • landlord-man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bibdid
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X