Claim against tenant - a few questions

[islandgirl]

I still disagree sorry. I think voids are part and parcel of renting and are an unquantifiable unknown. There is no normal or extended void, just a void. No arriving tenant can be signed up as the OP does not know how long the work will take exactly. I also see the other side of this but I still think it is not claimable, just any of the former tenant's lost rent plus damaged above the deposit

[R0b]

I still disagree sorry. I think voids are part and parcel of renting and are an unquantifiable unknown. There is no normal or extended void, just a void. No arriving tenant can be signed up as the OP does not know how long the work will take exactly. I also see the other side of this but I still think it is not claimable, just any of the former tenant's lost rent plus damaged above the deposit

Sorry to chime in but I think Efpom has a valid argument. Absent any case law or legislation suggesting otherwise, one might categorise the loss as a loss of profit, business opportunity or revenue and any other relevant category of loss this might fall under. The fact that the amount cannot be accurately quantified is neither here nor there and the courts will strive to achieve an amount that is fair based on the circumstances.

I wouldn't necessarily say that this kind of loss is a consequential loss as it could also be classified as a direct loss and I would probably argue that as the starting point then fall back on any argument that it is a consequential one.

As Efpom said, had the tenant vacated the property as per the terms of the agreement, I would assume the OP would do what any businessperson would do and in advance, advertise the property to be let on or around the day of it being vacated. Even if you allowed a week between tenancies for touch ups of the property and repairs, when you take into account the OP is renting out a high end property coupled with the well known issue that demand for rental properties are rocketing at the moment, any loss could quite easily be quantified based on the number of days/weeks the property remained empty.

But for the tenant's actions, the OP would not have suffered any loss of income or shelling out for the cost of repairs.

[efpom]

I think the principle is correct - whether a particular claim would succeed, is a matter of evidence in any particular case see e.g.


http://www.pla.org.uk/images/uploads...INGatd2014.pdf

[islandgirl]

Hi Rob you may well be correct but as a landlord you never ever know how long a property will take to let. It is rare that you have a tenant lined up (not least because the old tenant may refuse to move) so you only advertise when vacant. Referencing takes a while. It can be weeks before the flat or house is let again. Therefore I think any loss cannot be quantified. I am not an expert in this area and hope for the OPs sake I am wrong.

[Reviewwworld]

Thanks all, certainly very informative.
I guess what strikes me is how little cases of this out there or certainly that I could find. Given it must be relatively common situation, I'm suspecting the lack of precedence implies this isn't something landlord are overly successful with, despite the logic being sound

[R0b]

Hi Rob you may well be correct but as a landlord you never ever know how long a property will take to let. It is rare that you have a tenant lined up (not least because the old tenant may refuse to move) so you only advertise when vacant. Referencing takes a while. It can be weeks before the flat or house is let again. Therefore I think any loss cannot be quantified. I am not an expert in this area and hope for the OPs sake I am wrong.

I absolutely understand that position, but I think it is wrong to focus on the quantification of loss. This is no different a situation than an employee who suffers a personal injury and is out of work for a long period of time or where a supplier contracts with a buyer to sell a pallet of goods but then does a runner. In each of those cases there are no guarantees as to how long the employee will be out of work or how fast the supplier will sell that pallet and for how much.

The courts would focus less on the quantification but more around causation and to rebut your point about the difficulty in securing a tenant I would say to you, look at the current market where there is really high demand and if for example the property was based in London then you might have an even higher demand for rentals. On the other hand, if the market was really slow then I would agree any recoverability of might be slim but that's why landlords advertise in advance of the vacation date to secure the best chance of getting a tenant.

I'm not a landlord expert but i'm just equating the situation to other situations I've dealt with before and ultimately comes down to what the court believes is the better argument. Assuming there is no case law on the subject the OP might have a decent chance of persuading the judge.

I am intrigued on this position so I may do a little digging myself to see if there are any cases that have come across this situation as it's not an unusual one.

[efpom]

see #18 for the case law.

[Reviewwworld]

The property is indeed in London and is a 4 bedroom detached house, 1 of only 4 available in the first 3 characters of the postcode ie high demand area. Additionally we have had multiple requests for viewings, some we have had to decline as previous tenant wouldn't allow in, some we then had to decline in the early days of getting the property back just due to the state it was in. The two viewings we have had in the past week both have asked to take it at the asking rent but both have stipulated don't want it until all the remedial work is carried out.

[islandgirl]

Everyone on the thread should read #18. It seems the answer is yes (and no) Thank you Efpom

[R0b]

Yes, thank you Efpom although I would urge caution as the article is dated November 2014, some 8 years old so there could be case law since then confirming the position.

One thought that has sprung to mind, the OP may want to consider inserting a clause in the tenancy, the right to recover loss of rent on demand if works are needed to the property as a result of the tenants failure to maintain the property in reasonable condition provided. That provision could be watered down a little to qualify the right to demand loss of rent if the landlord has a tenant ready and waiting but then loses a tenant because of the time required to carry out the repairs.

By doing it that way, the OP has a stronger argument to claiming loss of rent based on a contractual right rather than rely on common law rights and to prove the losses were foreseeable and whatever other hurdles needed to jump through.

Of course the clause would be subject to the rule of fairness but provided it is carefully drafted, I think a tenant would be hard pushed to say they shouldn't be liable if the reason for the loss was caused by their actions (or inaction).

[Reviewwworld]

Hello

Just an update. Over a week ago I filed a deposit dispute through our registered deposit scheme. Tenant has only a few days left to respond to this via the deposit scheme. Today I have been contacted by a solicitor that claims to be representing the tenant and has requested some information from me relating to the claim.

I'm not sure of my obligations here. I would prefer contact at this stage to go via the deposit scheme and then when the tenant disputes my claim, for it to fall to an ADR process provided by the deposit scheme. Given we don't have a court case against the tenant as yet, do I need to engage in dialogue with their solicitor at this stage? Thus far the tenants have not accepted liability for a single item on the multi-page damages claim document I sent and have only responded thus far denying multiple items i.e. at this stage I don't want to waste any more of my time in a futile back-and-forth and would prefer my efforts are next spent sending evidence to an ADR adjudicator or if they refuse that service, then to the courts.

On the last point, is it normal for solicitors to be engaged if the intention is to resolve matters via ADR or is this an indication they will refuse mediation that way and court is becoming the increasingly likely option?

Thank you in advance

[atticus]

Engaging in dialogue clarifies issues. It may also possibly lead to agreement.

If you do not engage, you may later have to explain why not, and will struggle to come up with an answer that looks plausible.

I agree that the involvement of a lawyer suggests that your former tenant is seeking advice whether your claim can be resisted. But ADR may be possible: ask!

[Reviewwworld]

Great thanks for that. I'm all for dialogue if it's two-way and forming part of negotiations. Just wanted to avoid scenario where I'm unnecessarily assisting the other party.

[atticus]

Obviously it's a 2 way process. Points may be made which may cause you to reconsider your stance.

[Reviewwworld]

Absolutely, will start in the way I would wish to be treated myself and see where it leads.

One of the opening requests from them is to send them a Word version of a PDF document I had previously sent to tenants, I'm not prepared to convert it on their behalf, particularly when a PDF is very easy to mark up