Conflicts between landlords and tenants can end up in court, not only because defaultsalso when the homes are in bad condition. And this is what has happened to a 75-year-old French owner, with serious health problems and financial difficulties, who faced a complaint after being accused of not relocating a family that lived in an apartment declared unsanitary. The situation affected a couple and their two minor children, who denounced the conditions in which they lived.
Following the tenant’s complaint, the authorities inspected the property and the result was that the home had multiple deficiencies, such as lack of heating, presence of mold, leaks in electrical wiring and risk of falls. After the evaluation of the municipal services and the Regional Health Agency, the apartment was declared not suitable for habitability, as stated from The Depeche.
As a result, the administration ordered the 75-year-old landlord, who was a representative of a real estate company, to relocate the family within two months and for the house to remain empty until it was repaired. However, after that time, the tenants continued living in the apartment. The tenant claimed that the landlord had asked him to find other accommodation on his own, while he claimed that he had not been able to comply with the order due to his financial situation and the difficulty of finding a suitable alternative for a family of four.
The judicial process and the evidence that led to his acquittal
During the trial, the key was to determine whether the owner had deliberately ignored his obligation to rehouse the family. His defense maintained that there was no intentional refusal, but rather a real impossibility of complying with the mandate. “This building needs repairs, without a doubt. But the record does not show at all that the owner is trying to avoid his responsibilities,” explained his lawyer.
In addition, decisive evidence was provided, such as records of calls, messages and visits to a real estate agency that confirmed that the defendant had tried to find a solution to relocate the tenants. It was also proven that the rest of the homes he owned were occupied, which limited his options.
Given these elements, the court considered that the landlord had made real relocation efforts, although they did not materialize. Since a total lack of action could not be proven, the owner was acquitted of all charges.