Yes , but only if the tenant gave a written request asking the landlord to fumigate his premises before occupation or within the first few weeks of occupation.
Ask your attorney about your local laws, but because the infestation is passing through common areas I suspect that they can be.
it all depends on the landlord.
If you do not have a specific written agreement that the landlord will pay, then you pay. The landlord will be responsible for pest control when the pests are a health issue..German roach infestation...rats/mice inside...brown recluse/ black widow spiders found inside. In general most spider infestation are just a nuisance, but even "benign" species can cause health issues to certain people so if a tenant is at risk from recurring spider bites that send them to the hospital I would think the landlord would be held liable to the extermination.
Yes, if the landlord was apprised of the unhealthy conditions, did nothing to mitigate the situation and it can be proven the dog died as a result of the landlord's failure to act.Yes, if the landlord was apprised of the unhealthy conditions, did nothing to mitigate the situation and it can be proven the dog died as a result of the landlord's failure to act.Yes, if the landlord was apprised of the unhealthy conditions, did nothing to mitigate the situation and it can be proven the dog died as a result of the landlord's failure to act.Yes, if the landlord was apprised of the unhealthy conditions, did nothing to mitigate the situation and it can be proven the dog died as a result of the landlord's failure to act.
no
The roofer and ultimately the liability insurance co of the roofer. The roofer will likely be held responsible in the end but the tenant has no relationship to the roofer. The tenant has a relationship with the landlord and it is the landlord's responsibility to see that a roof was in proper condition. The tenant will need to seek redress from the landlord and it is the landlord's job to collect from the roofer.
no, Hitler was against having Jews around. He is held responsible for killing six million of them.
That shoud be spelled out clearly in a rental agreement before a tenant agrees to a rental situation. Sometime yes, sometimes no. Generally in a single family residence the tenant will be held responsible while a multi family residence such as an apartment or condo it will be the landlords responsibility. It is decided by the landlord on a case by case basis.
Yes, in certain cases the landlord may be held liable for damage caused to a neighbor's property. This is typically the case if the landlord has failed to maintain the rental property in a safe and habitable condition, or if the tenant has caused damage due to negligence. The neighbor may be able to sue the landlord for damages. To get more detailed information you can visit real estate agents like Umega in Edinburgh, who are professional estate agents in Edinburgh.
That would depend on who's angry wife your talking about. If the tenants wife damages your property or your landlords property then the tenants wife is liable for those damages. Due to the extension of common law you can also be held financially liable for actions of your spouse. The landlord would have no control over the tenants wife nor her actions and could not be held liable. If the Landlords wife came over and damaged your property or the landlords property then the Landlord and or the landlord wife would be financially liable.
The phrase 'held to answer' means held responsible.
It is possible for a landlord to be sued if they do not have completed operations aggregate coverage provided by the renters. This coverage helps protect against liability for accidents or injuries occurring after work is completed. Without this coverage, the landlord may be held responsible for any damages or injuries that occur on the property.