UK Landlord Forum / Life

i've got a flat in central london. it's rented to two tenants for 3 years. the AST is coming to an end and I want to put the price up. But the tenants say they want a reduction because the tower block behind the flat - about 20m away is being demolished and it'll disrupt their lives a great deal. it's going to be very very noisy. where does the law stand on this?

I'm not going to be much help as I'm not a legal executive, but is imagine that your agreement for your flat is not affected, if the work is not going on in your building, or the direct access to it, the remnant is 'relatively' unaffected.
I think this is more of a moral and business problem. You could lose the tenants if you fail to yield to their demands, or you could have them constantly complaining until the work is done, or you can give in and make a nominal reduction in rent (but it's not your fault!)
If there is a serious problem with noise pollution I'm sure the tenants have the right to complain to the council, perhaps they should be perusing the council for a reduction in their council tax!

Like I said....no help at all, but thought I'd put my two penneth in!

I phoned my mortgage company up and said I don't think it's fair I pay the full monthly amount as there was a building being demolished behind me.  It took a full 5 minutes for the person at the other end of the phone to stop laughing, then the line went dead.

Ok, maybe that didn't happen, but it's a similar scenario in my eyes.

I am not a lawyer, I am a bloke on the internet expressing personal opinions.
You should check anything I say with experts before acting on it.

First of all, there's two answers to this, one is a day to day commercial and relationship issue and the other is what might happen if you went to court.

If your tenant is unhappy that's not good.
Could you increase the rent, but defer the increase until the flat's been demolished?
It's not your fault, but is losing the tenant and re-letting more of a pain (and cost) than making a concession?

Legally, leases have an implied requirement for a landlord to allow the tenant "quiet enjoyment" of their property.
Sometimes it's an explicit term.
People tend to think that this is something to do with noise - it isn't.
Quiet in this case means undisturbed.
If you can't give the tenant quiet enjoyment you're in breach of the agreement.

There are precedents that any disturbance needs to have started after the lease did and be significant and persistent.
Given that the demolition is likely to be noisy and dusty for a relatively short period, they might have a case, but probably not.

And this only matters if you're in court and any claim is going to take account of the relatively minor nature of their actual loss from the inconvenience.
A rent tribunal might be more difficult, as you might find that the property is less attractive and worth less while the works being done.

But I can't imagine either case being worth it for either of you.

You've all been had by a one post wonder!

Ha, I knew it, and didn't answer for that reason....

I try and keep my first posts to them under one line now.  You never know!