Landlord/Renter Issue -Flood related

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What happens in the event of a fire? Let's say a fire caused by lightning burns the place he is renting to the ground. That would immediately end the lease; as the item he is renting no longer exists.

Wouldn't the fact that it's now a case of the place he is renting for habitation is no longer suitable for habitation be the same idea?

I'm not sure of the specifics, but I'd think that one or both of the landlord's and the tenant's insurance should cover the rent until the place is fixed up...

And what's the point of having insurance if not to use it during a time like this? Why bother paying into it if you're afraid to make a claim when the time comes?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What happens in the event of a fire? Let's say a fire caused by lightning burns the place he is renting to the ground. That would immediately end the lease; as the item he is renting no longer exists.

Wouldn't the fact that it's now a case of the place he is renting for habitation is no longer suitable for habitation be the same idea?

I don't know the laws in Alberta but insurance wise for your fire situation the owner would be covered by their insurance for damages and lost rent and the renters insurance would cover their additional living expenses at another place until the place that burned was fixed. Of course this is all subject to limits and I don't know how the insurance companies are deciding to cover/not cover this flood.

Personally if I'm J-bo9 I make a claim and if things don't work out in your favour (cost of insurance going up is greater than claim cost) you just don't follow through with the claim process. The insurance company doesn't raise prices until they pay out that first penny on your claim.

[mykalberta]

While I dont agree with it, I think photon is correct.

The renter is supposed to have insurance to cover temporary living while things get fixed, however I know the owner can also get insurance to cover loss of rent so that to me is where things get murky. Why would there be a need for a loss of rent if the renters insurance is supposed to be covering.

I have always wondered what a renters legal obligations are to a place where the terms of the lease are not being upheld as per them living there. If the place is uninhabitable then isnt that breaking the lease (owners fault or not)?

[photon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What happens in the event of a fire? Let's say a fire caused by lightning burns the place he is renting to the ground. That would immediately end the lease; as the item he is renting no longer exists.

Wouldn't the fact that it's now a case of the place he is renting for habitation is no longer suitable for habitation be the same idea?

http://www.slsedmonton.com/civil/lan...nd-tenant-law/

If the residential premises are destroyed, or are so severely damaged that they cannot be fixed or the tenant cannot live there, then all further rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant under the tenancy agreement are cancelled. The event that caused the damage must not have been anticipated, or intentionally caused, by either the landlord or the tenant.

http://www.landlordandtenant.org/liv...ge.aspx?id=602

Yes. If you stop paying rent you are at risk for being evicted for non-payment of rent. Even if you have to move out while the repairs are taking place you should still pay rent.
...
If the premises are completely destroyed by a disaster such as fire, it is likely that the lease agreement could be treated as frustrated (i.e., unable to be carried out) and the agreement will be over. However, if premises can be repaired so that the contract can continue, the contract will not be frustrated.

Yeah, if it's destroyed then it's gone, agreement is frustrated because the property no longer exists.

On the flip side, what if it's a gas leak that renders it uninhabitable but can be fixed in a few hours with an emergency visit from Atco (or whoever)? Obviously it's not reasonable that the agreement be declared frustrated just because it's uninhabitable for a few hours.

So it's not simply the fact it's uninhabitable that results in frustration of the agreement, it's the time frame involved as well.

So it's a question of what's a reasonable time frame to wait for damages to be repaired. I think as long as the landlord is making every possible effort to make repairs it would be unfair to have the agreement declared frustrated despite that.

In today's 1% vacancy it probably isn't an issue, but if it was the opposite where filling a vacancy was difficult, I think it's unfair that the tenant can just walk away from a legal agreement.

It's like the tenant expecting the landlord to be responsible if someone stole their bike while the bike was on the landlord's property.

[Jbo]

Quick question on the above Photon. The Landlord is making zero effort. None. It is the Condo Mangament company that is doing all the work. It is one thing if the landlord is contacting us, but in the case of a building, it is not like he is down there fixing the unit.

For me the words that keep coming up are "Reasonable" and "time-frame". To me it is unreasonable to pay, let's say 3 months, of a 12 month lease, before it can be fixed.

[photon]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

Quick question on the above Photon. The Landlord is making zero effort. None. It is the Condo Mangament company that is doing all the work. It is one thing if the landlord is contacting us, but in the case of a building, it is not like he is down there fixing the unit.

Well the condo management company is the one that's responsible for the building, they're a proxy for the landlord, letting the condo management company do their job IS making every possible effort. The owner of one unit cannot hire (or be reasonably expected to hire) their own contractors to address shared building issues, and how each individual unit impacted gets handled is a function of the condo corp and such, I don't know if each owner hires their own repair guys or if the condo corp does that en masse as well. If it's up to each owner to address the interior of each unit and your landlord hasn't made any arrangements if they are allowed to then you would have a point.

There's no requirement for a landlord to be fixing a unit themselves, that's not reasonable.

Originally Posted by J-bo09

For me the words that keep coming up are "Reasonable" and "time-frame". To me it is unreasonable to pay, let's say 3 months, of a 12 month lease, before it can be fixed.

Reasonable is in terms of what the repair should take, not in terms of what your lease length arbitrarily happens to be. Depending on the damage, 3 months might be completely reasonable or completely unreasonable.

If the furnace is broken and the landlord takes a week to even call someone, that's not reasonable. If it happens at 2:00am and a repair guy can't get there till 6:00am because the landlord can't find anyone despite making calls all morning that's reasonable.