How to find a private landlord?

[Jeffrey Shaw 94]

Answer: a landowner may be liable for the tort nuisance that's caused on his/her land but then pans out to affect another's. This is exemplified by the 1868 case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where it was reservoir water that spilled-out. Other cases followed its precedent.

See http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1868/1.html&query=title+%28+Rylands+%29+and+title+%28+v.+%29+and+title+%28+Fletcher+%29&method=boolean

[wadsleyblade 10]

Wouldnt have thought the Rylands v Fletcher ruling could be used here Jeffery. Wouldnt there have to have been an 'escape'??

[aliceBB 10]

Answer: a landowner may be liable for the tort nuisance that's caused on his/her land but then pans out to affect another's. This is exemplified by the 1868 case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where it was reservoir water that spilled-out. Other cases followed its precedent.

See http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1868/1.html&query=title+%28+Rylands+%29+and+title+%28+v.+%29+and+title+%28+Fletcher+%29&method=boolean

 

This is a completely different scenario from that in which someone is disturbed by noisy/antisocial neighbours who just happen to be tenants (rather than owner occupiers).

 

If the chimney of a rental property is blown down and damages a neighbour's property, the LL (or his insurer) is usually liable for remedying the damage. The same applies to anything else which falls under the LL's statutory repairing obligations (although Ts may be liable for cost if damage was caused by their action or failure to act, e.g. if they leave the house unoccupied with no heating on and the pipes freeze and burst). But if his tenants have wild karaoke parties until 3 a.m., it is up to the aggrieved neighbours to take action (as I have described above), not the LL.

[Jeffrey Shaw 94]

This is a completely different scenario from that in which someone is disturbed by noisy/antisocial neighbours who just happen to be tenants (rather than owner occupiers).

 

If the chimney of a rental property is blown down and damages a neighbour's property, the LL (or his insurer) is usually liable for remedying the damage. The same applies to anything else which falls under the LL's statutory repairing obligations (although Ts may be liable for cost if damage was caused by their action or failure to act, e.g. if they leave the house unoccupied with no heating on and the pipes freeze and burst). But if his tenants have wild karaoke parties until 3 a.m., it is up to the aggrieved neighbours to take action (as I have described above), not the LL.

Yes, except if:

a. L has conduced to the nuisance (or at least failed to take action to stop it); or

b. there are covenants by each owner in favour of the others [as you'd expect in leases of flats]

[aliceBB 10]

Yes, except if:

a. L has conduced to the nuisance (or at least failed to take action to stop it);

Are you talking about leases of flats here, or do you mean this would apply (for example) to troublesome tenants in a non-leasehold property (e.g. a house owned by a LL and rented to Ts)? If so, perhaps you could explain how a LL is supposed to 'take action to stop it' (ie nusiance)? By what law is he required to do so? And if this is the case (i.e. that the LL must intervene to stop the nuisance), why have you agreed with my statement that it is not the LL's responsibility (except in a licensable HMO) to control the behaviour of his tenants?

 

or

b. there are covenants by each owner in favour of the others [as you'd expect in leases of flats]

I expect you are correct about that.

[Jeffrey Shaw 94]

Are you talking about leases of flats here, or do you mean this would apply (for example) to troublesome tenants in a non-leasehold property (e.g. a house owned by a LL and rented to Ts)? If so, perhaps you could explain how a LL is supposed to 'take action to stop it' (ie nusiance)? By what law is he required to do so?

A good point, and thank you for your helpful contributuons to this thread.

 

It's not "a law" but a consequence of what's called an 'enforcement covenant'.

 

Assume flat 1 owned by T1 and flat 2 by T2 [each with leasehold ownership], and the freehold reversion owned by L. There are two contracts (= the leases), one between L and T1 and the other between L and T2. There's no contract between T1 and T2, however.

 

T1 creates a nuisance in breach of a usual covenant- e.g. noise, use of residence for business, etc.

 

T2 cannot enforce T1's lease. So T2 complains to L.

L can enforce it- but T2 cannot make L enforce it unless (in T2's lease) L has covenanted along the lines of:

L covenants with T2 to take enforcement action against the leaseholder of the other flat for any breach of covenant of which T2 notifies L but only at the request and cost of T2".

Edited December 1, 2014 by Jeffrey Shaw

[aliceBB 10]

 

It's not "a law" but a consequence of what's called an 'enforcement covenant'.

 

Assume flat 1 owned by T1 and flat 2 by T2 [each with leasehold ownership], and the freehold reversion owned by L. There are two contracts (= the leases), one between L and T1 and the other between L and T2. There's no contract between T1 and T2, however.

 

T1 creates a nuisance in breach of a usual covenant- e.g. noise, use of residence for business, etc.

 

T2 cannot enforce T1's lease. So T2 complains to L.

L can enforce it- but T2 cannot make L enforce it unless (in T2's lease) L has covenanted along the lines of:

L covenants with T2 to take enforcement action against the leaseholder of the other flat for any breach of covenant of which T2 notifies L but only at the request and cost of T2".

I do not dispute any of the above; my point is that I cannot think it applies in a situation where rent-paying Ts of non-leasehold property (such as a terraced, detached or semi detached house or bungalow, as opposed to a flat), are causing a nuisance/annoyance to their neighbours.

 

I think that in that situation, all that the inconvenienced neighbour can do is keep a log of the nuisance and report it to the Noise Abatement Officer at the local council. There is no obligation on the LL to sort the problem out (although it might be in his interests to do so).

Edited December 2, 2014 by aliceBB

[Jeffrey Shaw 94]

Yes, that sounds good advice.

[aliceBB 10]

Good. I'm glad you agree about that.

 

(Sadly, the OP has long since disappeared).