How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Remus2004 Your Own Question
Remus2004, Barrister
Category: Property Law
Satisfied Customers: 71146
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice.
Type Your Property Law Question Here...
Remus2004 is online now

We have a six month tenancy to rent a flat. There are two

This answer was rated:

We have a six month tenancy to rent a flat.
There are two months gone on the rental period.
One of the flats above ours has suffered a major water leak and we are being told by the owner that we must move out more or less immediately.
Qs please;
1 Can she do this?
2 Does she have to provide alternative accommodation for the remainder of the agreement.
3 Does she have to cover our removal costs?
4 If we have to take another six months Tenancy elsewhere, does she have yto cover the extra two months we will have had to rent for?
Help and advice appreciated
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this.
I presume your flat is damaged by the leak?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

It is not our flat it is rented.

There is damage due to the water damage but not significant damage.

We could live here for the remainder of the agreement but the maintenance people say we have to move in order that they can dry the whole building out

Thank you.
If you are subject to an assured short hold tenancy agreement then she cannot just throw you out. To remove you against your will she would need a court order although it would be possible for her to get one on the basis that damage will be caused to the property if this work is not done.
She doesn't have to cover your removal costs because at some point another you would have to move anyway.
Similarly she doesn't have to cover an extra two months. I'm not quite sure why you think that she may have to?
What she cannot do is charge rent from you during the period that you are not able to live there.
Also she would have to release you from your assured short hold tenancy so that you can go and rent elsewhere.
If she does what you could go though she would have to serve proper notice but bear in mind that she could get in again fairly quickly if she can convince a court that there is a genuine risk to the property.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

1. Because we are having to move early into another rented we are incurring extra costs. If the Tenancy had gone to its six month period we would have just moved once into our own house.

2. Because we will end up paying rent for 8 months instead of only the six we need a rented property for.

3. If we had broken the Tenancy Agreement early, she would have witheld the deposit and sought to get the extra months rent back.

Do we have a claim against the owner because she has failed to provide accommodation for the full six month period agreed at the outset?

1-that is not something that can be laid at the door of your landlady I'm afraid. Those are your personal arrangements and she is not liable for them.
2-but you would have paid for the extra two months somewhere anyway. She cannot charge you for those two months but since you are not being charged she cannot be expected to pay rent for you elsewhere
3-yes but that doesn't have any relevance to this situation.
4-not beyond the ones that I mentioned above is not being charged rent and being free to leave the contract. There's just plain no other loss arising from her breach for which you can claim.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

If all had gone as it should have we would only have rented for six month. As it is we may end up renting for a total of eight months which is two months longer than we require

Yes, but those two months are only being paid to a new landlord as they would have been to her. It is not an additional cost.
In fact, if you moved out then there are landlords that will let for two months but even if you had to take an additional four to make it a six month let that is a disadvantage that is too remote from the breach to claim from your existing landlord.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

As I keep saying we only need six months not eight so we would not have been a. Further two months. To anyone

Is she liable for not fulfilling her. Side of the agreement and providing accommodation for six. Monthjs?

1 I'm afraid I am not sure what else I can say on the point of a further contract. All that might be right. The landlady is not liable.
2 Yes, she is but there is no loss beyond that which I have covered above.
Remus2004 and other Property Law Specialists are ready to help you