There is no rule, act of Parliament or case law which provides in the event of a property rendered uninhabitable by some disaster that the landlord must arrange alternative accommodation for the tenant. It is submitted this is the case even if the landlord was at fault and somehow caused the fire.
However, the local authority does have such a duty if the tenant is homeless.
A person is considered homeless if they have no accommodation available to occupy [s.175 Housing Act 1996].
A person is in priority need of accommodation if a person is homeless (or threatened with homelessness) due to an Emergency such as a flood, fire or another disaster [s.189(1)(d) Housing Act 1996].
Where a local authority has reason to believe a person is “homeless” and “in priority need for accommodation, ” there is a temporary duty to accommodate. As such, they “… shall secure that accommodation is available for his occupation pending a decision as to the duty (if any)” [s.188(1) Housing Act 1996].
Will the landlord pay for alternative accommodation after a disaster such as a fire or flood?
Whether the landlord must pay for the costs of re-housing a tenant albeit temporary will depend on whether the landlord is in breach of his repairing obligations or not and whether the fire was the landlords fault.
The landlord is not in breach of his covenant to repair until he has notice of the disrepair and a reasonable time has elapsed in which the repair could have been carried out [O’Brien v Robinson [1973] A.C. 912]. Therefore, if the fault was for example due to the electrics in the property but the landlord was not aware of any problem nor had the landlord received any notice of a defect, then, the landlord is unlikely to be liable for any damages to the tenant and therefore the landlord will not be liable to contribute towards the alternative accommodation.
If it is found the landlord was liable for the defect (perhaps by receiving notice of the defect and failing to act) and the tenant has found the defective condition of the premises to be intolerable and has reasonably taken alternative accommodation at reasonable cost, then the cost of this alternative accommodation will normally be recoverable from the landlord [Calabar Properties v Stitcher [1984] 1 W.L.R. 287, CA]
How badly the property has been damaged and whether alternative accommodation was reasonable and necessary will be down to the individual case in question and no strict set of rules will be able to answer that question.
Will the landlord’s insurance help me after a disaster such as fire or flood?
In the vast majority of cases, there will be buildings insurance on the property and that will normally (though not always) cover both the alternative accommodation and rent. However, it depends on the situation and terms of the tenancy as to what the insurance will pay out.
Where, as in most cases, the tenancy remains silent, then it is up to the tenant in essence what should happen. If the tenant wishes to have alternative accommodation paid for by the landlords insurer, that will normally (though not always) be available under the policy. However, in this case, the tenant must continue to pay the rent for the destroyed house because that is (a) what the law provides and (b) it would be unfair if they didn’t because otherwise they would be living for a period entirely free of charge. Where alternative accommodation is paid in this manner, any loss of rent will not normally be paid to the landlord because of the tenants responsibility to continue to pay.
Alternatively, the tenant may wish to offer a Surrender of the premises altogether and simply hand the keys back. The landlord is free to accept this Surrender if they wish, in which case, the tenancy will end immediately and if the insurance has rent loss cover (something that often has to be specifically asked for) the insurers will pay loss of rent whilst the building is reinstated.
Another alternative is that the tenant may agree with the landlord that instead of paying the rent for the destroyed house, instead they will pay for the alternative accommodation themselves. In this situation, the insurers (again assuming cover) would pay the loss of rent and not the alternative accommodation costs.
This is not definitive because it is all dependant on the terms of the individual insurance policy and the terms of the tenancy but the key point is that rarely will insurance pay both alternative accommodation and rent loss. It will be for the landlord and tenant to agree which is to work best for them and in particular whether the tenant intends to return after the property is reinstated.
If the tenancy agreement provides that the landlord will insure the property but fails to do so, presumably he will have to cover any costs that the insurance would have paid had he not breached the tenancy and failed to insure.
Will I need to pay rent after a disaster such as a fire or flood?
Where rent is payable on a tenancy and there is no exception in the case of fire, then, the tenant remains bound to pay the rent even though the house is burnt down because the land remains and the parties were free to agree a contrary stipulation in the tenancy had the parties intended [Matthey v Curling [1922] 2 A.C. 180]. This rule applies even if the landlord has received the insurance money from insures [Lofft v Dennis (1859) 1 E. & E. 474]
References
O’Brien v Robinson [1973] A.C. 912
Calabar Properties v Stitcher [1984] 1 W.L.R. 287, CA
Still not answered your question? We love questions so fire it at us using the contact details here
Please rate this article so we know how well it answered your question…
