Compensation for no heating & hot water in Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement
Jack Manfred
pay by law if there is no heating & hot water in a property in an
Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement? Section 11 of the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1985 is often cited when this situation arises but I cannot
find anything stated on the legal required compensation? Is there any
other leglislation or guidelines which stipulate the amount of
compensation? Is the tenant legally entitled to the full rent pro-rata
for the days in which there was no heating or hot water or is the
matter just left to the landlord and tenant to come to mutual
agreement on the figure?
Many thanks.
Mark Goodge
typed:
The compensation would be the amount of money necessary to cover the
additional costs imposed on the tenant as a result of the failure. For
example, the additional cost of running (and possibly purchasing) electric
heaters instead of using the central heating.
To be a bit more precise, section 11 doesn't use the word "compensation" at
all, so using the word is a bit misleading. What it actually says is that
the landlord has an obligation to ensure that the property has working
heating and hot water, and if these are not provided by him the tenant is
entitled to take the necessary steps to provide them himself and charge the
cost to the landlord.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Roland Perry
<88a959c8-7b12-4dbe...@fo10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, at
23:35:02 on Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jack Manfred <j.s.m...@gmail.com>
remarked:
I'm not aware of anything that might be available. On a personal note, I
was without hot water for three weeks in a rented house in February a
few years ago (thanks a lot, those famous boiler repair people who will
"start", but not finish, repairing your boiler in 24hrs) and I couldn't
even get the landlord (via their agent) to agree to supply me (or pay
for) an alternative way to heat water, let alone any compensation.
We didn't want to go down the litigation route (I was very unwell at the
time), and in the face of them stonewalling we just staggered on for day
after day, seemingly getting to know every boiler repair man in the
region.
It was eventually fixed when the repair organisation called in an expert
from the boiler manufacturer - I recommend people insist on that rather
earlier than we did!
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
07:45:05 on Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>What it actually says is that the landlord has an obligation to ensure
>that the property has working heating and hot water, and if these are
>not provided by him the tenant is entitled to take the necessary steps
>to provide them himself and charge the cost to the landlord.
But is that obligation deemed to be discharged if he has a maintenance
contract with a well known repair outfit? And if not, after how long
would it be reasonable for the tenant to start making other arrangements
if the landlord's view was "I've paid for the boiler to be fixed, it's
not my fault if that takes a few days". (eg do you end up having to sue
the repair company).
And who pays if you go out and rent something, only to get home and find
the boiler's been fixed?
--
Roland Perry
Jack Manfred
The existing boiler broke down and I arranged for a plumber to fix it
within 24 hours of it being reported to me. It broke down again a week
later but I was at the property supervising another tradesmen and the
tenant informed me in person. It was repaired within 3-4 hours of her
reporting it to me.
I then decided to have a new boiler installed. The situation has been
made much worse because of a completely unreliable plumber. He started
the job on 20th December and told me that it was a 2 day job. He
removed the boiler and then proceeded to install a new boiler for one
of my neighbours. A job which was originally booked for mid January.
He then went on to do other jobs and didn't turn up when he said he
would. The boiler was only installed 12 days later on New Years Eve.
All of this is an aisde and of course he is accountable to me and not
my tenant so none of this is her problem. I chose Christmas week to
minimise the disruption as she told me that it would be convenient
because she would not be at the property during that period but she
changed her mind at the last minute.
I offered my tenant compensation before she even asked for the
inconvenience especially since this has happened just weeks into her
tenancy but she has stated that the figure is unsatisfactory and that
she wants to be refunded full rent pro-rata for the days she didn't
have working heating.
I feel that full rent reduction is not applicable as she had use of
the property during that time. There was alternative heating and the
property was not completely uninhabitable for the entire period she is
asking for full rent reduction.
I feel that compensation of 50% of rent refund for the affected days.
Do you think that this is reasonable?
On a personal note, I'm not a professional landlord. This used to be
my home and still treat it as it still was. During the two weeks I had
to drive 150 miles round trip TEN TIMES to visit the property usually
leaving at 5am. I feel I've done everything possible to minimise the
inconvenience to my tenant.
Many thanks for your help.
Roland Perry
<81a98ad1-92a5-48ec...@l22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, at
09:05:02 on Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Jack Manfred <j.s.m...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>I then decided to have a new boiler installed. The situation has been
>made much worse because of a completely unreliable plumber. He started
>the job on 20th December and told me that it was a 2 day job.
It's a shame you can't get compensation from the plumber, then pass that
to the tenant. But full marks for doing reasonably well in the "landlord
refuses to declare anything beyond economic repair, ever" stakes.
>During the two weeks I had to drive 150 miles round trip TEN TIMES to
>visit the property usually leaving at 5am.
Was that mainly attributable to the plumber?
>I feel I've done everything possible to minimise the inconvenience to
>my tenant.
Some landlords think they've done that simply by taking out a
maintenance contract (the ones managed via the letting agents
can be the worst).
--
Roland Perry
Martin Bonner
> I feel that full rent reduction is not applicable as she had use of
> the property during that time. There was alternative heating and the
> property was not completely uninhabitable for the entire period she is
> asking for full rent reduction.
>
> I feel that compensation of 50% of rent refund for the affected days.
> Do you think that this is reasonable?
I think you should work out what it would have cost the tenant to buy
a couple of heaters (£20 each) and run them during the day. Also
factor in some more electricity for hot water. Compare that with the
rent. My guess is that it will come to less than 50% of the rent - in
which case the rest is just you being a reasonable landlord.
It won't be a fixed proportion of the rent. The compensation would be
a lot less in July, than it would be in December (particularly this
December).
In fact, you've had a lot of bad luck:
- Bad plumber
- Tenant changing her mind about when would be a good time
- Doing it over Christmas (so tenant isn't out at work all day)
- Bad weather (means tenant has to spend more heating the house)
- Bad weather (means plumber is called out on emergency calls to fix
his other customers' boilers).
Ian Jackson
Jack Manfred <j.s.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I feel that compensation of 50% of rent refund for the affected days.
>Do you think that this is reasonable?
Martin Bonner has given you a way to calculate a reasonable sum in a
more accurate way.
But speaking as an ex-tenant who has had no end of trouble with
useless letting agencies and/or landlords - TBH I'm not noramlly
inclined to take the side of landlords in disputes - I think your
offer is very reasonable and if I were the tenant I would accept it.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Jack Manfred
Roland: I had read that the way you outlined was the way it is often
calculated. From my understanding of Section 11 of the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1985 this is what the responsibilities of the landlord are
when such incidents arise. I believe I've complied to all the relevant
legislation.
I decided to get a brand new boiler even though the boiler was working
once it was fixed the second time to avoid future problems. I
specified a Worcester Bosch Greenstar CDi boiler installed and not a
cheap one.Yes the repeated journeys were mostly because of the
plumber. The job should have be done in two days as quoted.
I have offered 50% rent reimbursement for the affected days because
this has happened just weeks into her tenancy and I did not want to
create bad feelings for the rest of her tenancy.
I forwarded an email from my tenant in which she accurately all the
disruption to the plumber. I stated I was unhappy because it started
my job then left it with no boiler then proceeded to install my
neighbours boiler and go to other jobs. So a job which was quoted to
me as 2 day job became a 12 day job. The plumber called me and has
been abusive. Told me that it was ridiculous I held him responsible
and that I now have no warranty. TBH I don't actually care because it
is covered by the manufacturer's warranty for the same duration which
I would use if the need arose. Although I don't see how he has a legal
basis for declaring my warranty null and void (which he gave me to me
in writing) because hes fallen out with me. He then he called me a
liar although I don't know what exactly I'm lying about and to stop
harassing him even though it was him that has made abusive phone calls
and text messages to me. I only sent him one message which said that
if he would not honour the warranty and am I charged by the
manufacturer for a call out in the event of the warranty being voided
due to incorrect installation I would recover the costs from him
through a small claims court.
Geoff Berrow
<j.s.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I feel that compensation of 50% of rent refund for the affected days.
>Do you think that this is reasonable?
>
>On a personal note, I'm not a professional landlord. This used to be
>my home and still treat it as it still was. During the two weeks I had
>to drive 150 miles round trip TEN TIMES to visit the property usually
>leaving at 5am. I feel I've done everything possible to minimise the
>inconvenience to my tenant.
>
>Many thanks for your help.
My wife works for a property letting company. This is what she has to
say.
"I have discussed this case with my boss and we both agree that, as a
Landlord, he has done everything he possibly could for his tenant, and
all in good time. It was the fault of the Plumber that he was caused
so many problems, as he rightly states.
However, the amount of compensation for the 12 /14 days that his
tenant was without the boiler all really hinges on how much her weekly
rent is. If her rent is around £85.00 per week (on a par with ours),
then we are only talking a couple of weeks rent (say £170/£200 tops),
however, if her rent is much more than this, he has to decide if it is
worth it to him to pay her and keep a (hopefully) good tenant, or fall
out and lose her. We don't know the area he is in or what the rent is,
so it isn't easy to make a decision.
He would lose much much more money if he let it go to Court!
We sympathise because he has spent money and time in all the traveling
he has had to do too, but at the end of the day, we don't think it is
worth falling out over. The fact that he has already offered
compensation is an act of liability on his part, so paying the full 12
days rent back should not really be too much of a hardship for
him.That's what we would do if anything like that happened here, but
it's only our opinion."
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Jack Manfred
I should point out that my tenant has asked for 17 days full rent
refunded. This includes days when the heating had only stopped working
for a few hours. The weekly rent is £156.25. The property was not
completely uninhabitable for this duration and there was alternative
heating and I feel full rent reduction is not applicable as she did
still have use of the property. I've offered my tenant 50% rent
refunded for the 17 day period pro rata and currently awaiting to hear
her response.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>In message <6oati6dlb4o3d6juc...@news.markshouse.net>, at
I have no idea. I suspect that these questions would need to be answered in
court.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>I offered my tenant compensation before she even asked for the
>inconvenience especially since this has happened just weeks into her
>tenancy but she has stated that the figure is unsatisfactory and that
>she wants to be refunded full rent pro-rata for the days she didn't
>have working heating.
>
>I feel that full rent reduction is not applicable as she had use of
>the property during that time. There was alternative heating and the
>property was not completely uninhabitable for the entire period she is
>asking for full rent reduction.
>
>I feel that compensation of 50% of rent refund for the affected days.
>Do you think that this is reasonable?
I think you're being entirely reasonable, and you're almost certainly going
beyond what is required by law.
Geoff Berrow
I don't anyone think you are not being fair, more than fair in fact.
Good tenants are hard to come by but on the other hand so are good
landlords like yourself.
Let's hope your tenant realises this.
Ian Jackson
Jack Manfred <j.s.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[tale of woe due to useless and abusive plumber]
I would make sure that everyone in your area knows about this and
knows the name of the plumber. Eg, in Cambridge, I would post to
cam.misc. Perhaps there are (probably webby) online places to mention
it. I might also send a note to the local paper although they may be
too scared of libel.
Speaking of which, please don't mention the name of the plumber here.
The ulm moderators are understandably worried about being sued.
Chris R
The ulm moderators are understandably worried about being sued.
-------------------------------------------------
A case has been reported today in which the Advertising Standards Authority
censured an advertiser for derogatory reference to a competitor who was not
named in the advertisement, on the basis that consumers could do their own
research to establish the identity of the competitor.
Chris R
Jack Manfred
used my own real name / email address to protect the identities of all
parties concerned (and also my email inbox from spam) just incase
anyone recognised themselves. I hope this isn't a breach this
newsgroups rules.
My tenant has responded to my offer of 50% rent reduction which
equates to £174 by stating that she wants £200. I stand by my original
offer as I think my reasoning was fair but I have given her what she
was asking as I didn't want to get into a dispute with her over such a
trivial sum. Also, I didn't want to create bad feelings to marr the
rest of her tenancy.
With regard to the plumber I generally wish to put such incidents
behind me. I have much more important prorities in life. He's declared
that my warranty (which he gave me in writing) is invalid because he's
fallen out with me. I replied with a single text message stating that
if there were any problems with the boiler and the manufacturer would
not honour the manufacturer's warranty because of incorrect
installation I would recover the costs from him through a small claims
court. He accused me of harassing him and asked me to cease contact
with him. The opposite was true - it was him that made an abusive
phone call to me and sent me threatening text messages.
Out of interest for future reference would Gas Safe investigate a
complaint of this nature? Reading their website suggests they only
investigate cases where there is possibly sub-standard workmanship.
I normally use one of the largest very well known plumbing companies
in the area but their quote was much higher and they had a long lead
time. But as the saying goes "The pleasure of a low price is short-
lived but the recollection of poor service will last a lifetime".
YAPH
> Out of interest for future reference would Gas Safe investigate a
> complaint of this nature? Reading their website suggests they only
> investigate cases where there is possibly sub-standard workmanship.
First check: did he fill in the 'benchmark' log book (part of the manual
with W-B boilers)? Did he actually fill in sensible-looking stuff and not
just skip or cross out all the boxes?
You can check his registration on the Gas Safe Register website (enter his
registration number which should be on the benchmark sheet).
Has he notified the installation? You should have received a letter from
Gas Safe Register saying that it has been notified to the local
authority's Building Control dept.
If everything isn't tickety-boo you could contact GSR, describe the events
and say you have qualms about the integrity of the guy and the quality of
his workmanship and invite them to to inspect the installation.
(FWIW as a gas installer I once had a disgruntled customer ask CORGI (as it
then was) to inspect a job I'd done for them. The inspector gave me a bit
of a grilling (quite rightly: I was new to the field and inexperienced and
he picked up on some errors I'd made) but fair, and in that instance he
tacitly acknowledged that the customers were being plonkers. I wouldn't
lightly wish an inspection on a fellow installer but I do try to avoid
winding up my own customers! And if he's done a good job, despite whatever
may have happened between you business-wise, he's not nothing to worry
about.)
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
I forgot to take my amnesia medicine again