Recent Feedback
I am about to tent from Crown Estate Commissioners a residential 2 bed 2 bath property. Crown Estates insist that I am liable for damages that are not covered by their insurance policy, but refrain from providing me with a copy of such insurance policy. 1. Is this a Assured Shorthold Tenancy contract? 2. If yes - would this "insurance coverage" affect my rights. 3. If not an AST - what are my main risks re. this tenancy?
Optional Information: Province/Country relating to question : London Already Tried: Tried to negiotate with agents who ware very inflexible - saying that Crown Estate does not negotiate their contracts.
Hi there. Thanks for your question, I will assist you with this.
What type of damages are we talking about? Do you mean physical damage to the premises?
The contracts says:
Insurance We will insure the building and the contents (but not your belongings). You do not have to pay the rent (or an appropriate percentage of it) for any period when (in our reasonable opinion) you are not able to live in or use the flat (or part of the flat) as a result of damage by fire or other causes. However, you will have to pay the rent if the insurers refuse to pay out because of anything you or any people living with you, or visitors to the flat, do or fail to do. If (in our reasonable opinion) you are not able to live in or use the flat as a result of fire or other causes, we may give written notice to you to end the tenancy straight away.
Insurance
We will insure the building and the contents (but not your belongings).
You do not have to pay the rent (or an appropriate percentage of it) for any period when
(in our reasonable opinion) you are not able to live in or use the flat (or part of the flat) as
a result of damage by fire or other causes. However, you will have to pay the rent if the
insurers refuse to pay out because of anything you or any people living with you, or
visitors to the flat, do or fail to do.
If (in our reasonable opinion) you are not able to live in or use the flat as a result of fire or
other causes, we may give written notice to you to end the tenancy straight away.
also there is referral to insurance when they ate to repair the falt or appliances. I am afraid that if I fail outside the insurance I will have to pay on my own. But I don't know what's in the insurance policy.
An insurance policy is for the benefit of the landlord in this instance, and as such, you should assume you're liable to pay everything you would normally be liable for regardless of the insurance. This policy is really for the landlord, not for you, although you could look into the market and see what policy you could get for your own benefit.
Also, if the landlord failed to disclose something relevant, then this may mean the insurer would decline cover and leave you in the same position anyway.
I hope this answers your question. If so, please do press accept and leave a little bit of feedback if you don't mind?
Agents have provided me with such a statement but refused to include it in the contract.
‘The tenancy agreement has been set out so that the tenant is compliant with the building insurance policy - therefore, if the tenants comply with the tenancy agreement, they are complying with the building insurance policy.’ In the agreement I have asked for three bikes to be stored but the contract says "one" (and they don't want to change which I don't undrstant) - I am afraid that if I am not complying to the contract - this would mean that their insurance policy does not work. Is this and AST anyway with Crown Estate or my right are limited?
You could be right that your breach having 3 bikes might mean their insurance might not apply. That potentially means you're assuming a big risk if something goes wrong with the premises.
I don't know who your tenancy is with, but this should be stated in the tenancy agreement itself.
Your rights etc. should be explained (in part) under the contract, but there are a whole host of rights tenants have under statute anyway, although nothing I'm aware of would affect this particular position.
Does this answer your question?
This is an expensive property for me GBP 650 p.w. I don't want to pay extra for say broken washing machine. I just want that landlord repairs all and keeps the flat in order unless this was my deliberate action to destroy something. Moreover, the landlord is Crown Estate and I have read that Crown estate tenancy agreements are not AST. Is this correct and what extra risk it would mean for me?
Well, there seems to be an obligation for the landlord to insurer these, but insure against what is not clear. So, for example, would the policy cover wear and tear on washing machines? You should check the scope of the insurance. But, even if not insured, I would expect to see an obligation in a furnished flat on AST to repair such things anyway.
I don't know what type of tenancy they're granting, but what I can say is that the key is the terms of the contract in any event, as it would be with an AST.
That's the problem: they say that they would repair IF the repair is covered by insurance. Can you confirm then taht Crown Estate tenancy is protected as a regular AST which I had before. This is not my firts rent, and I never had such problems before. That is why I started to worry a bit about their intentions.
You need to check the insurance further then. Crown Estate lettings are Regulated Tenancies - not ASTs. These generally provide more protection that you find for ASTs. You can read about the detail of these here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138295.pdf
Sorry, but still don't understand the correlation:
the bookled says:
Lettings by the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall are regulated tenancies, unless they are one of the exceptions.So Crown estare are or they are not AST's?
Lettings by the Crown Estate Commissioners, the
Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall are
regulated tenancies, unless they are one of the
exceptions.So Crown estare are or they are not AST's?
You need to look at the contract they're proposing to you. This should make it clear. It depends on certain other things, such as whether it's for holiday/business purposes (in which case, it's not likely to be regulated tenancy). But, either way, it will be regulated or assured, and you have protection in either case, so I'm not sure I understand what your fear is?
They are unusually strict and unwilling to negotiate anything (e.g. the case with one or three bikes). I am afraid of getting into an agreement where I will be penalized and charged for much more than just rent if it is not covered by landlord's insurance policy.I don't know what agreement it is, really, they do not mention that it is AST or anything else apart from that it is a 1 yr contract:
Merchant Square - Tenancy agreement Part A The terms we use in this agreement
Merchant Square - Tenancy agreement
Part A The terms we use in this agreement
In this agreement, the following words and expressions have the meanings given next to them.[...] The length of time you agreed to rent the flat for, starting on 11
The length of time you agreed to rent the flat for, starting on 11
th May 2012 and ending on 10
May 2012 and ending on 10
ending on 10
th May 2013
May 2013
[...] Letting the flat
Letting the flat
We agree to let the flat to you at the rent shown on the first page of this agreement, for the tenancy period shown on the first page of this agreement. You may use the shared areas and the contents during your tenancy for their intended purposes. You may keep one bicycle for your personal use in the bicycle store of the building (at your own risk) during the tenancy.
We agree to let the flat to you at the rent shown on the first page of this agreement, for the
tenancy period shown on the first page of this agreement.
You may use the shared areas and the contents during your tenancy for their intended purposes.
You may keep one bicycle for your personal use in the bicycle store of the building (at your own
risk) during the tenancy.
Welcome to JustAnswer! If you've queries once you've read my answer do ask. When satisfied, please kindly click the Green ACCEPT button I am sorry to interject but the above appears to be becoming very confused. I specialise in Housing Law and I feel it is necessary to clarify some issues. Firstly Your tenancy will be assured shorthold tenancy. The exception my colleague is referring to relates to Crown tenancies. It does not apply to properties that are under the management of the Crown commissioners which are quite capable of being ASTs. Secondly you are not liable for any wear and tear to appliances or the building structure. You would be liable if you actually cause damage but not for anything else. Any term that requires that you are so liable is an unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. In addition any term that requires to to comply with an insurance policy where the terms of that policy have not been disclosed to you are also deemed to be unfair. Kind regards
Thanks, that's much more clear now. Where should I seek advice on whether any clauses are deemed unfair? Regulars courts or OFT?
Yes certainly. The OFT have published their guidance on unfair terms here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdfThe landlord is liable for the structure of the property, the sanitary installation - water etc and heating and if the property is supplied with such, appliances. You would only be liable for any damage you cause and it would be down to the landlord to prove on the balance of probability that you caused such damage if he wishes to claim monies from you for repair.
Experience: LL.B (Hons), Prof Dip Law & Practice. 9 years experience in private practice in England