Unexpected scaffolding on rented property
Bob
1 & 2, the other tenant has floors 3 & 4). About 6 weeks ago, scaffolding
was erected covering the entire frontage of the building and causing some
damage to the flowers and shrubs in the very small garden at the front of
the house, planted by my friend at some expense.
Since the erection of the scaffolding, no work has been carried out. My
friend (and I presume his neighbour) is unable to open his front windows for
fear of leaving access open to burglars.
Is there any regulation which obliges a landlord to provide advance notice
of works which would require scaffolding, or indeed gain prior consent for
what are clearly not emergency repairs? And is there any regulation which
might impose some obligation on the landlord not to overly delay the works ?
While my friend is not looking to pick a fight with the landlord, the
situation is beginning to irk.
Many thanks.
tim....
"Bob" <b...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:j3jvkp$men$1...@dont-email.me...
The problem is that the erection of the scaffolding is probably not within
the control of the LL. It is the freeholder who has decided to do this.
Whilst it is remiss of the freeholder not to inform occupants that the
scaffolding will be erected, there cannot be a different obligation on the
freeholder to respect the rights of sub-tenants than there is to the primary
tenants, and experience tells me that in the latter case they can do, more
or less, whatever is necessary to comply with their obligations to repair
the property.
tim
>
steve robinson
> A friend rents a flat in a converted house on the south coast (he
> has floors 1 & 2, the other tenant has floors 3 & 4). About 6
> weeks ago, scaffolding was erected covering the entire frontage of
> the building and causing some damage to the flowers and shrubs in
> the very small garden at the front of the house, planted by my
> friend at some expense.
>
> Since the erection of the scaffolding, no work has been carried
> out. My friend (and I presume his neighbour) is unable to open his
> front windows for fear of leaving access open to burglars.
>
> Is there any regulation which obliges a landlord to provide advance
> notice of works which would require scaffolding
No specific regulations
, or indeed gain
> prior consent for what are clearly not emergency repairs
No they do not need consent to perform repairs , although they need
to notify you if they need to enter the property
? And is
> there any regulation which might impose some obligation on the
> landlord not to overly delay the works ?
No,
>
> While my friend is not looking to pick a fight with the landlord,
> the situation is beginning to irk.
>
> Many thanks.
Its quite possible that the scaffholding was erected to allow
contractors access to view the works, be happy you have a landlord
that cares
Bob
--------------------------------
Sorry, I should have clarified that that landlord is the freeholder.
NT
To be honest Bob if the property owner is going to the expense and
trouble of scaffolding, you can bet that its necessary. I'm not seeing
what's to be gained by complaining about the very minor inconvenience
that essential works tend to cause. That properties need maintenance
and repair is part of real life.
NT
Bob
------------------------------------
I made it clear in the original post that my friend doesn't want to pick a
fight, so your comments are irrelevant. If the works had been essential,
there's a reasonable chance that works might have actually taken place.
However, the entire frontage of the property has been covered in scaffolding
and the windows almost completely obscured for more than 6 weeks. Nothing,
beyond the erection of the scaffolding, has happened.
There is no argument that maintenance may or may not be needed. My question
was about regulations and process, not the forbearance or lack of gratitude
of the tenants.
NT
> In article <j3nc4j$cc...@dont-email.me>, b...@invalid.invalid says...
>
> > To be honest Bob if the property owner is going to the expense and
> > trouble of scaffolding, you can bet that its necessary. I'm not seeing
> > what's to be gained by complaining about the very minor inconvenience
> > that essential works tend to cause. That properties need maintenance
> > and repair is part of real life.
>
> > ------------------------------------
>
> > I made it clear in the original post that my friend doesn't want to pick a
> > fight, so your comments are irrelevant. If the works had been essential,
> > there's a reasonable chance that works might have actually taken place.
>
> Not necessarily. If a building fault is reported, the insurers may insist
> on immediate scaffolding to inspect, and/or protect or support the
> building. This is to protect themselves and their client the building
> owner against public liability claims for injury by tenants or anyone else
> entering the building.
>
> Having secured the building it can then take months to obtain a full
> engineering assessment of the reported fault, then agree financial
> liability for the works, then put the work out to tender, and appoint a
> contractor.
>
> Janet.
I wonder if perhaps Bob lacks experience in building maintenance,
landlording, insurance claims, structural issues etc.
NT
steve robinson
Possibly , but so do 95% of joe public
Colin Youngs
news:j3jvkp$men$1...@dont-email.me...
:About 6 weeks ago, scaffolding
: was erected covering the entire frontage of the building
: Since the erection of the scaffolding, no work has been carried out.
:
: While my friend is not looking to pick a fight with the landlord, the
: situation is beginning to irk.
Has your friend actually asked the landlord why the scaffolding is there -
as a simple enquiry, without "looking to pick a fight" ?
Colin Youngs
Brussels
Bob
> trouble of scaffolding, you can bet that its necessary. I'm not seeing
> what's to be gained by complaining about the very minor inconvenience
> that essential works tend to cause. That properties need maintenance
> and repair is part of real life.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> I made it clear in the original post that my friend doesn't want to pick a
> fight, so your comments are irrelevant. If the works had been essential,
> there's a reasonable chance that works might have actually taken place.
Not necessarily. If a building fault is reported, the insurers may insist
on immediate scaffolding to inspect, and/or protect or support the
building. This is to protect themselves and their client the building
owner against public liability claims for injury by tenants or anyone else
entering the building.
Having secured the building it can then take months to obtain a full
engineering assessment of the reported fault, then agree financial
liability for the works, then put the work out to tender, and appoint a
contractor.
------------------------------------
Since the scaffolding was erected, nobody has taken a single step on it.
Nobody has reported a fault with the exterior of the property. The only
people who might report an issue with the interior are the two tenants,
neither of whom have reported any issues. The landlord is the freeholder.
The scaffolding is not of sufficient strength or coverage either to support
or protect the building. Had it been required to indemnify the owners
against liability against claims for injury, the tenants would have been
required to have been notified of the risk.
"Minor inconvenience" comprises the destruction of the expensive plants,
which after 6 weeks under scaffolding are virtually all dead; the inability
to open any windows which, for one of the tenants who is housebound, has
proved a significant and distressing disruption; the frustration of limited
light through the majority of what passes for the summer; and the lack of
the courtesy of any information from the landlord.a
None of which has any relevance to the original question, which has been
answered by others.
Chris R
> which after 6 weeks under scaffolding are virtually all dead; the
> inability to open any windows which, for one of the tenants who is
> housebound, has proved a significant and distressing disruption; the
> frustration of limited light through the majority of what passes for the
> summer; and the lack of the courtesy of any information from the
> landlord.a
>
> None of which has any relevance to the original question, which has been
> answered by others.
Is the garden part of the property let to the tenant? if so, the landlord
should not be using it for scaffolding, except by exercising his rights to
access for the purpose of repairing, If not, why is the tenant planting
plants in a garden that is not his?
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
steve robinson
> > To be honest Bob if the property owner is going to the expense and
> > trouble of scaffolding, you can bet that its necessary. I'm not
> > seeing what's to be gained by complaining about the very minor
> > inconvenience that essential works tend to cause. That properties
> > need maintenance and repair is part of real life.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > I made it clear in the original post that my friend doesn't want
> > to pick a fight, so your comments are irrelevant. If the works
> > had been essential, there's a reasonable chance that works might
> > have actually taken place. of the tenants.
>
> Not necessarily. If a building fault is reported, the insurers may
> insist on immediate scaffolding to inspect, and/or protect or
> support the building. This is to protect themselves and their
> client the building owner against public liability claims for
> injury by tenants or anyone else entering the building.
>
> Having secured the building it can then take months to obtain a full
> engineering assessment of the reported fault, then agree financial
> liability for the works, then put the work out to tender, and
> appoint a contractor.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Since the scaffolding was erected, nobody has taken a single step
> on it.
Are you sure of this,unless the tenants are camped on the scaffhold
then its highly likely they have not sen anyone although its quite
probable that someone has paid a visit
>
> Nobody has reported a fault with the exterior of the property. The
> only people who might report an issue with the interior are the two
> tenants, neither of whom have reported any issues. The landlord is
> the freeholder.
>
> The scaffolding is not of sufficient strength or coverage either to
> support or protect the building. Had it been required to indemnify
> the owners against liability against claims for injury, the tenants
> would have been required to have been notified of the risk.
Thats an assumption on your part Bob, you are not aware of what the
problem is , it could be slipping slates, decayed roofing tile
battens , may even be put in place to change the gutters.
There is not a requirement to notify the tenants of every external
problem or risk unless the risk is likely to injure them or any of
the guests o
>
> "Minor inconvenience" comprises the destruction of the expensive
> plants, which after 6 weeks under scaffolding are virtually all
> dead; the inability to open any windows which, for one of the
> tenants who is housebound, has proved a significant and distressing
> disruption; the frustration of limited light through the majority
> of what passes for the summer; and the lack of the courtesy of any
> information from the landlord.a
>
> None of which has any relevance to the original question, which has
> been answered by others.
Thats the risk you accept when you plant a garden be it a tenant or
private householder if works need doing plants are likely to get
damaged
It really is a minor inconvienience, its just getting blown out of
proportion
Bob
> > on it.
> Are you sure of this,unless the tenants are camped on the scaffhold
> then its highly likely they have not sen anyone although its quite
> probable that someone has paid a visit
Yes, my friend is certain. As I wrote elsewhere, his neighbour (the other
tenant) is housebound and spends all day in the front room, where the
scaffolding is. This is a quiet road and visitors to the front of the house
would have been noticed.
> > Nobody has reported a fault with the exterior of the property. The
> > only people who might report an issue with the interior are the two
> > tenants, neither of whom have reported any issues. The landlord is
> > the freeholder.
> >
> > The scaffolding is not of sufficient strength or coverage either to
> > support or protect the building. Had it been required to indemnify
> > the owners against liability against claims for injury, the tenants
> > would have been required to have been notified of the risk.
> Thats an assumption on your part Bob, you are not aware of what the
> problem is , it could be slipping slates, decayed roofing tile
> battens , may even be put in place to change the gutters.
None of your examples address the comment I made in response to the question
I was answering. However, I can recognise that scaffolding that is not
attached to the exterior wall but is, in effect, barely touching it, is
neither supporting the wall nor protecting it.
> There is not a requirement to notify the tenants of every external
> problem or risk unless the risk is likely to injure them or any of
> the guests o
> >
> > "Minor inconvenience" comprises the destruction of the expensive
> > plants, which after 6 weeks under scaffolding are virtually all
> > dead; the inability to open any windows which, for one of the
> > tenants who is housebound, has proved a significant and distressing
> > disruption; the frustration of limited light through the majority
> > of what passes for the summer; and the lack of the courtesy of any
> > information from the landlord.
> >
> > None of which has any relevance to the original question, which has
> > been answered by others.
> Thats the risk you accept when you plant a garden be it a tenant or
> private householder if works need doing plants are likely to get
> damaged
Not according to other posts.
steve robinson
A scaffold does not need to be touching a building to be in place to
protect it or the residents
>
> > There is not a requirement to notify the tenants of every external
> > problem or risk unless the risk is likely to injure them or any of
> > the guests o
> > >
> >> "Minor inconvenience" comprises the destruction of the expensive
> >> plants, which after 6 weeks under scaffolding are virtually all
> >> dead; the inability to open any windows which, for one of the
> >> tenants who is housebound, has proved a significant and
> distressing >> disruption; the frustration of limited light through
> the majority >> of what passes for the summer; and the lack of the
> courtesy of any >> information from the landlord.
> > >
> >> None of which has any relevance to the original question, which
> has >> been answered by others.
> > Thats the risk you accept when you plant a garden be it a tenant
> > or private householder if works need doing plants are likely to
> > get damaged
>
> Not according to other posts.
Well Bob how do you suggest the Landlord gains access to the upper
aras includeing the roof, other than cherry pickers and scissor lifts
which require licences to operate and will cause considerable damage .
Just because your a tenant it does not mean you are not going to be
inconvienienced or deserve compensation if remedial works are needed
on the external areas of the property .
Assuming the tenants are short term assured tenants if its a standard
off the shelf agreement which most letting agents seem to use these
days its quite possible it prohibits anything other than garden
maintaince anyway .
I cant see how the scafhold is damageing the plants anyway Bob unless
your complaining that the planks have been stacked on the flowerbeds