To think that my (upcoming) landlord should pay to put me in a hotel?

[RogelioMyBrogelio]

I’m due to move into a flat next Monday, but unfortunately I’ve had a call today to say that the upstairs flat has had a burst pipe and my (soon to be) flat has significant damage to the ceiling, walls and electrics. An insurance assessor is coming tomorrow apparently, but my new (upcoming) landlord says I won’t be moving in next week by the looks of it. I’ve asked if she can put me up in a hotel until then, as my current tenancy ends next week too. She has said no as the new tenancy hasn’t started so she doesn’t have me covered on her insurance, and I also haven’t signed a contract (she did send me one but I was just gonna leave it until the day I moved in to sign it). I have given her a month’s deposit, which she has protected and is offering to send back to me today out her own pocket so I don’t have to claim, but what I really want is to be in that flat! a contract has been drawn up and dated 2 weeks ago so AIBU to think that the protections stipulated in that contract should apply to me (it says in the case of emergencies that the landlord will put the tenants up in a hotel)

I would say by paying the deposit you do have a contract otherwise what was the deposit for! Both you and the landlord have shown "intent" by paying/accepting the deposit all part of the contract (I am assuming the contract document mentions the deposit). It's really unfortunate about the flat being damaged, would you be able to negotiate say a 50/50 split on the cost of alternative accommodation until the flat is ready. Your new landlord will be having repairs carried out at the cost of the flat that caused the damage, not the insurance for your new flat. Citizen Advice maybe able to advise you, or do any solicitors in your area offer free 30 min consultation. Also if you are a Union member they usually have free advice via phone. If your current flat is still available what's the desperate need to move?

Can't believe people are encouraging this CF. The LL doesn't have to negotiate anything with this person and if the CF does push all that will happen is that the LL will spin out the repairs and when the 4 months is up, serve the 2-month notice (as you can do with a 6-month AST) because who would honestly want a tenant like this?

As everyone said you didn’t sign contact so no ll shouldn’t pay for you to be in a hotel

You would have been happy to dump her if didn’t have a job

Saying that if you didn’t have a job how would have paid for current place seeing it’s £70 more

Or pay the extra £70

And course she isn’t going to sign a contract till her place is livable

This thread is actually astonishing. Cheekiest F-er ever.

The poor landlord has the major hassle and expense of sorting an ACCIDENT that was nothing to do with her, and you think she has a duty to assume responsibility for you on top of that??
You, a stranger who has never lived there or paid her any rent, and deliberately didn't sign the contract to give yourself the option of stiffing her! (Why though - surely if you'd lost your job it would be better to be signed up to the cheaper new place than the current one which is suddenly completely unaffordable?!)

Anyway, you chose not to sign that contract precisely to ensure it was NOT enforceable.

Forgetting what legal loopholes there may be (though I doubt you have a leg to stand on) your own moral compass should be telling you everything in this situation. The landlord should tell you to do one.

@Racecardriver IMO it's not equivalent to Brogdem. The OP hasn't moved in and made it plain to the landlord that they didn't want to be bound by the contract until she did so. Paying the deposit is not performance of the contract.

If anything, it's similar to the Canadian case of R v. Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd. I can't recall an equivalent case in the UK but the principles are the same. You have contract A for the deposit and contract B for the tenancy. Here, as contract B was never entered into because of the damage to the property, the deposit that was paid under contract A must be refunded.

I would have a different answer if the OP had moved in already, because that would imply acceptance. But as things stand I think the OP is trying to have their cake and eat it.

@AllyMcbeagle a collateral contract?

a collateral contract?

Yes. That's the right term (I was struggling to remember due to my hatred of contract law baby brain).

Funnily enough she wasn’t up for meeting to sign the contract today hmm

Hilarious, so now you want to retrospectively sign the contract so you have rights whilst simultaneously believing the landlady you have no contract with should pay your extra £70 for rent.

This gets better and better.

Honestly, if I were her I wouldn't come into any agreement with you, now or in the future.

As a Landlord I wouldn’t accept you as a tenant you sound as if you want both bites of the cherry. You didn’t sign the contract to protect yourself but it works both ways, she now doesn’t have to fulfil any obligations to you.

you're right I think