Landlord Liability

machalla

A question arose about my home (which I'm considering renting out soon).

The front door of the house is raised about 1.5 feet up from the street so you have to step up to get into the house. (similar to every other house on the same street).

I've never had a problem nor has any visitor but it was pointed out to me that if a tenant somehow tripped on the step that as a landlord I would be liable for any injury to them.

Apparently new building regulations would make this step illegal in the modern era. This house is around 80-90 years old at this point though so would have been legal at the time the house was built.

Is this a consideration to be taken very seriously?

pwurple

The step is part of modern building regulations because of wheelchair accessibility, not trips and falls. Same reasons light switches in a modern fit-out are at about 1m high, instead of out of children's reach. We are still allowed to have stairs in our homes after all.

An accident a tenant has on my property is one of the reasons I have public liability included in my landlord insurance. To cover injuries, as well as damage etc.

machalla

Thanks pwurple. Yes, I thought it had more to do with accessibility as it certainly was not built with that in mind at the time.

I was told that the property would be effectively impossible to rent due to the risk of liability like this.

There are glass panes in some of the internal doors also and this was another reason the property would be "impossible to rent" due to risk of liability (someone cutting themselves on glass from one of these doors).

I just wondered where the landlords liability ended vs the tenants responsibility for their own safety in a property.

amcalester

Unless the step is poorly maintained, or you were otherwise negligent in your duties to the tenant I see no reason why you would be liable if the tenant fell or otherwise injured themselves.

GarIT

pwurple wrote: »

Same reasons light switches in a modern fit-out are at about 1m high, instead of out of children's reach.

This one really annoys me. There needs to be somewhere I can sign to state I will never allow someone in a wheelchair into my home so that I can put the switches wherever I want. We had to have the house rewired a year ago after a fire and the electrician said he couldn't put the switches any higher, it pisses me off anytime I have to reach down to reach the light.

Who ever is saying you should worry about this is scaremongering to a massive level. What next, remove the stairs incase they fall down it, no kettle incase they scald themselves with hot water.

That step shouldn't even be entering your head. Also it's likely against planning to remove it, especially if the houses are that old the original facade will likely have to be retained by law.

antoinolachtnai

Who or what sort of person told you this stuff?

Is this house in Dublin?

pwurple

machalla wrote: »

I was told that the property would be effectively impossible to rent due to the risk of liability like this.

By whom?

machalla

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Who or what sort of person told you this stuff?

Is this house in Dublin?

A builder who would be used to working on renovating council houses for the council. Perhaps the regulations on these may be higher than private rental accommodation. Or else the council are very paranoid about the litigiousness of some of their tenants.

I think they were being excessively paranoid and trying to warn me off from even considering renting.

The danger is that some unknown regulation or quirk of liability law could catch you out. Public liability insurance seems the best answer to it as was mentioned.

pilly

machalla wrote: »

Thanks pwurple. Yes, I thought it had more to do with accessibility as it certainly was not built with that in mind at the time.

I was told that the property would be effectively impossible to rent due to the risk of liability like this.

There are glass panes in some of the internal doors also and this was another reason the property would be "impossible to rent" due to risk of liability (someone cutting themselves on glass from one of these doors).

I just wondered where the landlords liability ended vs the tenants responsibility for their own safety in a property.

There are glass panels on my internal doors in my rented house that has been inspected by the council, never any mention of them? I think whomever is advising you is being totally over the top to be honest.

antoinolachtnai

At the end of the day it is a matter of what you are comfortable with. Being a landlord is a serious business, make no mistake. I don't see that there is necessarily an issue, but you need to have your own advisors who you can depend on.

pwurple

machalla wrote: »

A builder who would be used to working on renovating council houses for the council. Perhaps the regulations on these may be higher than private rental accommodation. Or else the council are very paranoid about the litigiousness of some of their tenants.

I think they were being excessively paranoid and trying to warn me off from even considering renting.

The danger is that some unknown regulation or quirk of liability law could catch you out. Public liability insurance seems the best answer to it as was mentioned.

Yes, or, trying to persuade you into a load of unnecessary work.

Litigiousness of some of their tenants is certainly one to look out for. I've seen a certain council house where 16 members of the same family have fallen over the same piece of kerb and injured themselves.

Mrs OBumble

You wouldn't be able to rent it to council / HAP tenants .... oh what a shame NOT!!!

Just make sute your LL insurance includes public liability.