UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hello - Basically, my property is in the hands of a letting agent who manages my property.  I pay for gas/electric checks, inspections, repairs etc via the letting agency.
I have just been informed today that the tenant has gone to a 'no win no fee' solicitor and a claim has been made against me after she fell down the stairs and hurt herself, carpet burns, cut to the cheek (possible scar) and she is 34 weeks pregnant, because there was no bannister.  Now this should have been picked up by the letting agent surely after they inspected my property.  The letting agent deals with everything and i never know who is in my property.
I am going to seek a solicitors advice but who is responsible for not checking that there should be a bannister.  I would have put one in had i known.
The letting agent has had no contact from the tenant to ask for one, as i say i would have put one in.
I am worried sick now, i'm not trying to rip anyone off as a landlord and accept my responsibilities but just would like to know if anyone has been in a similar situation, advice etc.
Thank you

I bet you are worried now and with good reason.  Don't try and pass the buck about no bannister rail, it is your house and your lack of a bannister.
You and you alone are resposible for your house and the safety of living in it not your agent, not the guy next door nor your auntie nelly.
You better get one fitted straight away but the result of you not having one was asking for trouble and you've certainly got it.
I hope your tenant is alright.

Hold on a minute.

There are clear rules set out for this, a very accurate and well researched document exists for Health and Safety checks in your home.

The local council will have an officer in charge of this, the Agent will know them, and will advise on these issues.

Even if the fact there is not a hand rail has been identified as a risk, there are all kinds of other factors regarding types and severity of outcomes to consider.

DONT Rush to put up a hand rail.

SPEAK to the Agent, and get a meeting with the council at the property to gauge what they feel.

The tenant has to take some responsibility for all this, and if the council are sympathetic, you shouldn't worry.

Its sad when people hurt themselves, but provided you or the Agent haven't been negligent ( i.e. they were warned it was a propblem, and they / you did nothing about it)  they building complies with current building regulations ( yes there are rules which say when and where you need a hand rail) then it will be ok.

Good  luck.

What you're looking for can be found in Document * K* of the Building Regs "Protection from Falling, Collision and Impact" which says that, in "dwellings", stairs less than 1m wide should have a handrail on one side, if the staircase is wider there should be one on either side. The HR should be affixed at a height between 900 and 1000mm measured from the floor or pitchline to the top of the rail. Side guarding is required for flights of stairs and landings where there is a drop of more than 600mm in houses. The guarding should not be of a type that can be climbed by children under 5 and a 100mm sphere must not be able to pass through any opening (ie the size of a small child's head)
Of course building regs vary and there is also the duty of care issue.

gls, if you're going to quote entries verbatim from other forums, from years ago, you should make that clear. You should also check what you're referring to is still true, a lot could have changed since 2008. Anyone can type "landlord banister mandatory" into Google. Well, I can. 

Fair enough if i'm not correct that's fine.  I'm not the one with the problem but I stand by my thoughts that i'd never ever let a property to a tenant with no handrail least of all a pregnant tenant.
I don't fancy putting myself into the lap of the gods legal or otherwise, couldn't live with it i'm glad to say.

Not saying you're wrong, and I've always installed a handrail (twice) if one wasn't there, just that you should check - as the stuff you cribbed directly from another forum was from 2008 and it did look like you were presenting us with your knowledge.

Not a legal expert but I think the responsibility lies with you. The agents are likely to have clauses in their contracts that make them exempt from responsibility of the health and safety aspect of the property.

Do you have legal cover with your home insurance (is it buy to let insurance)

Thanks for all your input so far, just to answer some questions;
The tenant is ok, this accident happened back in the middle of Feb (she has had the baby and all fine and wasn't pregnant when she started the tenancy), and i have only just received the letter from the solicitor yesterday.  The letter was sent to my agent and received the beginning of March.  My agent sent it onto me yesterday as he said his insurance doesn't cover this, the letter is addressed to the agent (not me) and the complaint is to the agent (not me).  The agent has stated in his email to me that he wasn't aware of a banister being needed (which is i believe the responsibility may still lie with me as its my property) - but as the agent does everything from finding tenants, checking the property, taking the rent/bond, sorts gas/electric checks, renovates when needed etc surely he should have known about a banister.
The agent or myself has not been notified from the tenant about a banister and it would have been put in had i known, the tenant went straight to a solicitor without going to the agent (which strangely is across the road from the front door of the property !).
I will contact the council and get advice, i have also contacted a solicitor, so i will now have to wait for more information.

This Tenant is still your Tenant?

That's terribly bad form, and rather stupid, to start suing your Landlord / Agent while still residing in the property. Desperate or stupid, or both? Sounds like a fishing exercise, to me, where they hope you'll make a financial offer before this ever gets near a Court... might even be safe to ignore.

Just because Agent provides a "full management" service for you you are not absolved from your responsibilities. You are obviously more of an "arm's length" investor / Landlord... but, still... the Landlord has a role to play. I am sure we would all be interested in what advice you now receive from the Solicitor you are going to.

You really need to check your contract with the agent in the first instance.

If he is liable and a claim is issued against you then you could add the Agent as a Part 20 defendant, bringing them into the proceedings.

I understand Hippogriff that the tenant is still my tenant, i really am not trying to pass the buck, but if you pay for a 'management agency' to check the property then surely they are partly responsible.  I do agree that to do this while still in residence is stupid, but i'll keep you informed as to the solicitors reply.

I'm not 100% sure about ignoring this....mmmmm, doesn't sit comfortable but we'll see.

The contract between myself and the agent doesn't mention about this type of issue but it also does not mention they are not liable.  Their website states they comply with all aspects of the housing law and check properties for tenants and that all complies with local authorities/laws.

Just to state the claim has been made against him, not me, but he has passed it onto me stating his insurance doesn't cover it.

I don't know if this is relevant but the tenancy agreement is signed by the agency and not me, i have never seen any of these in the past as he deals with it all.

By "still your Tenant" I really meant it's cheeky for them to sue while still living in your property... not that you are - so obviously - liable because it's still your Tenant. Hopefully that de-emphasises my words. I might still feel that way, but that's not what my sentence meant - hope that is a bit clearer. 

I presume you'll shortly be issuing one of those revenge Section 21s? 

Ah, i understand what you mean about 'still your tenant' now, oops, clearer now 

Well, thats the next thing, i don't want a tenant in there that does this sort of thing so will have a look at the 'section 21' 

You get a call at 10a.m. you've not slept, as baby is keeping you wake... Have you had a fall.. etc etc. You say anything to get shot.

Get the council in to assess the property, let them decide. Just say you want to make sure you meet all health and safety rules as the Agent is under review.

Dont make a Mum and Baby homeless, just because some nasty solicitor is trying it on.

Smiley face means it was a joke right?

Yes, the smiley face was 'tongue in cheek', there's far more pressing things to sort than get into section 21s, i am contacting the council today as well.

Quote from: boboff on April 24, 2015, 10:14:39 AMDont make a Mum and Baby homeless, just because some nasty solicitor is trying it on.

Yikes. Nasty Solicitor is not acting on their own cognisance... they are given an instruction, by the Tenant. Section 21 would already be on the doormat. There is a difference between receiving a reasonable request for repair work to be undertaken and being sued in my mind... it seems this Tenant thinks that it's fine to sue someone but still live in the property while making no other approach about the issue... that I do not get. Sounds like a screw loose to me. Definitely an unacceptable approach, one that seems (to me) to not even care about having the problem resolved... just £££s.

Yes, but the clue is in the title


"Tenant"

Um, exactly my point. Perfectly justifiable to evict... and recommended. If in doubt, kick the buggers out...

Ok Nige.

Gonna report you to the Moderator.

How is your Back?

My post seems to have been hi-jacked, may have to get a moderator in......

Update - I've spoken to my solicitor who has informed me that because the tenancy agreement has been signed by him (which i thought was unusual) and claim is made out to the agency then it is against him.  But, the agency could then name me as a co-claimant etc.  The positive thing about this is that i can prove that the agency has been negligent in its duties.  The handrail, although is needed now, theres a fine line between whether it was needed at the time as its an older flat, has never had one and the tenant has never informed the agency about it.  My solicitor has said that there has been an incident like this recently from a no win no fee business (i very loosely use the term 'business' for these types of people, actually it was the same one) and it was thrown out of the window.

So although not over, the agency is now getting a detailed email informing them that basically they have to deal with it.  If theres a counter claim then i have sufficient evidence that the agency are in the wrong eg. theres nothing in my contract with them with a get out clause.

I'm still not sleeping well but hey 

Are you keeping the Tenant?

If you've got insurance try and sleep a little easier.