Course content includes:

• Purpose of an inventory and its role in the letting process
• Independence and accuracy
• Best practice and achieving consistency
• Crucial tenant check in and out procedures
• Terms of Business, duty of care and rights of the inventory provider
• Safety law and practice
• Damage and wear and tear
• Abandoned property and goods
• Handling disputes and adjudication – recognising why you might lose, but more importantly how to win.

Full details are available on the training page.

Dear Adrian,

I have a tenants in a 3 bedroom semi detached house and they have asked me to deal with a wasp nest in the shed.

Am I responsible or are the tenants?

Many thanks,

Answer:

[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']Firstly, if the tenants are good tenants, such a small job to fix would probably be best done by a landlord just to keep the Peace, in particular when the market is the way it is and good tenants can be hard to come by. However, the law would suggest this is probably not the landlords duty:

Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides that the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property and this includes all parts of the estate (garages, sheds etc.) However, it seems a wasps nest is not actually damage to the structure requiring repair and therefore probably not the landlords responsibility.

In a comparable case, but under different legislation which doesn’t really apply here, it was held that the infestation of rats from time to time, was not the landlords responsibility, but if they were permanently at the property and bred there, then they may become “part of the property” and thus a defect which was the landlords responsibility [Stanton v Southwick [1920] 2 K.B. 642 .].

The contrary argument is that presumably the nest is “attached” to the structure (of the shed) and so could be argued that this gives the structure itself a defect that requires repair. Although, as a general rule, plaster which is also attached to the structure doesn’t normally apply under the repairing obligations (unless a defect in the structure caused the damage to the plaster)[Irvine v Moran [1991] 1 E.G.L.R. 261]. (But a concession to the contrary was made in Staves v Leeds City Council (1990) 23 H.L.R. 107, and approved in Hussein v Mehlman [1992] 2 E.G.L.R. 87 (county court)).

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System Guidance doesn’t mention the removal of wasps as it talks about prevention rather than cure, so although the local authority could in theory intervene under this legislation, it’s unclear on what basis.

On balance therefore, I would submit that this is the tenants responsibility, but a landlord would normally be advised to carry out the works themselves if they are good tenants in particular because the cost of works should be relatively minimal.

One final point to note, although local authorities can often be unreliable in many aspects of their work, in the case of pest control and removal, our experience is that they are very good indeed and usually much less expensive than comparable commercial companies.

[/amember_protect]

Compensation

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), codes of practice are created. Code of Practice “B” deals with entry and searching of premises. Note 6A states:

Whether compensation is appropriate depends on the circumstances in each case. Compensation for damage caused when effecting entry is unlikely to be appropriate if the search was lawful, and the force used can be shown to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary to effect entry. If the wrong premises are searched by mistake everything possible should be done at the earliest opportunity to allay any sense of grievance and there should normally be a strong presumption in favour of paying compensation.

Therefore, the first thing to establish is [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']whether the entry was lawful and the damage necessary. If it was, then no compensation will be payable.

If it was actions of the tenant that caused the police to enter, in particular a breach of tenancy  (for example using the premises for illegal or immoral purpose), then, it is submitted the tenant will be liable for the costs of repair.

If however the tenant is in no way at fault, the position becomes unclear. In a question today by one of our members (which instigated this article) the reason for the police breaking the door was:

… the Police … were given information that he may have tried to kill himself. The information was false and malicious, sent via a text to his sister who called Police…

Was it lawful entry?

Leaving the premises

“…what does “to use the premises in a tenantlike manner” mean? It can, I think, best be shown by some illustrations. The tenant must take proper care of the place. He must, if he is going away for the winter, turn off the water and empty the boiler. He must clean the chimneys, when necessary, and also the windows. He must mend the electric light when it fuses. He must unstop the sink when it is blocked by his waste. In short, he must do the little jobs about the place which a reasonable tenant would do. In addition, he must, of course, not damage the house, wilfully or negligently; and he must see that his family and guests do not damage it: and if they do, he must repair it. But apart from such things, if the house falls into disrepair through fair wear and tear or lapse of time, or for any reason not caused by him, then the tenant is not liable to repair it.” [Denning L.J.]

Tenant like manner also includes changing a washer on a tap. [Wycombe Health Authority v. Barnett (1982) 5 H.L.R. 84.] & [para 13.020 Woodfall Landlord & Tenant.]

[/amember_protect]