PDA

View Full Version : Domestic appliances



tania pyke
13-03-2009, 15:04 PM
If a dishwasher needs replacing and the landlord refuses do the tenants have any recourse? I the landlord legally obligated to replace it? The appliance is noted on the inventory.

jeffrey
13-03-2009, 15:07 PM
If a dishwasher needs replacing and the landlord refuses do the tenants have any recourse? I the landlord legally obligated to replace it? The appliance is noted on the inventory.
Why does it need replacing? What caused that need- misuse by T?

yaf201
13-03-2009, 15:09 PM
If the dishwasher is included in the inventory, it sounds to me like the landlord is the "supplier" of the dishwasher and should have some responsibility for maintaining / replacing it. I would have thought that if he didn't you should be able to renegotiate teh rent as you are not receiving the same service as you were when it worked.

That's just my guess though.

tania pyke
13-03-2009, 15:24 PM
No misuse - just old and clapped out!

mind the gap
13-03-2009, 15:56 PM
If a dishwasher needs replacing and the landlord refuses do the tenants have any recourse? I the landlord legally obligated to replace it? The appliance is noted on the inventory.


Tania - yes, I would say the LL is obliged to replace it (assuming it was not noted as out of order on the inventory). If you have asked him and he has refused, or delayed unreasonably, then you should write to him/email him, advising that you feel the delay on his part is unreasonable; that you are happy to source a replacement if ithe dishwasher is beyond repair, or to instruct a tradesman if a repair is economic ; and that you propose to deduct the cost of repair or replacment from next rent payment, unless you hear from him within 7 days of your letter. Remind him of your contact details. (If you think a repair is a non-starter, advise him of that).

Strictly speaking, he needs only replace it with a model in similar condition to the old one,but it isn't easy to find good second hand diswashers, so make it clear that if you replaced it, you would buy new. Tell him how much you can get one for (about £200 is standard).

If he doesn't like that idea, it might jolt him into action!

Good luck.

Bel
13-03-2009, 20:22 PM
No misuse - just old and clapped out!

It would have to be non-functioning rather than just old. If it can fling water about and drain away, then it still works.

DavidDerby
16-03-2009, 18:55 PM
This happened to us just last week - 'cept it was the washing machine that conked out on our tenants, not the dishwasher. Given they'd had a baby just a couple of weeks ago and that thanks to Mr. Brown, our rental income is now much higher than an our mortgage payments we saw it as a moral obligation rather than contractual obligation to replace it quickly. :)

mind the gap
16-03-2009, 19:12 PM
This happened to us just last week - 'cept it was the washing machine that conked out on our tenants, not the dishwasher. Given they'd had a baby just a couple of weeks ago and that thanks to Mr. Brown, our rental income is now much higher than an our mortgage payments we saw it as a moral obligation rather than contractual obligation to replace it quickly.

I salute you, O Wise Landlord, (although I wouldn't like to think we were all dependent on Mr Brown for the speedy replacement of our clapped out washing machines...:))

DavidDerby
18-03-2009, 12:30 PM
I salute you, O Wise Landlord, (although I wouldn't like to think we were all dependent on Mr Brown for the speedy replacement of our clapped out washing machines...)

lol! We're only doing what the government has asked us to do...using the money we're saving through lower interest payments to help kickstart the economy by spending on consumer goods! It's a small gesture tho it'll take a few more kn@ckered home appliances to keep up with the payments on Freddie Goodwin's pension...:rolleyes:

mind the gap
18-03-2009, 19:01 PM
lol! We're only doing what the government has asked us to do...using the money we're saving through lower interest payments to help kickstart the economy by spending on consumer goods! It's a small gesture tho it'll take a few more kn@ckered home appliances to keep up with the payments on Freddie Goodwin's pension...:rolleyes:

I can think of a few more small gestures I'd like to make in FG's direction, too!

He won't have any sleepless nights wondering where the money'll come from to buy his next vacuum cleaner belt...or mansion... will he?

Spangles
19-03-2009, 17:13 PM
Hello,

In my tenancy agreement it states that all the white goods are in working order at the moment but if they need repairing or replacing it is the tenants responsibility & not the landlords. So i suppose it depends on what it says in your agreement.

Spangles

mind the gap
19-03-2009, 17:19 PM
Hello,

In my tenancy agreement it states that all the white goods are in working order at the moment but if they need repairing or replacing it is the tenants responsibility & not the landlords. So i suppose it depends on what it says in your agreement.

Spangles


I think that is unenforceable, unless the repair or replacement can be demonstrably due to tenants' misuse of equipment.

jeffrey
19-03-2009, 17:23 PM
I think that is unenforceable
Why would that be?

mind the gap
19-03-2009, 17:41 PM
Why would that be?

Requiring T to repair/replace (unless with identical, equally knackered/unreliable item) = betterment.

Also, the expectation is that LLs have repairing obligations for items supplied by them. This obligation is usually written into tenancy agreements. If item is on the inventory as working, then it breaks down or dies, through no fault of tenants, then is LL not in breach of contract by refusing to ensure it is mended?

If LL tries to dodge this obligation by writing in a clause like the one quoted above, I suspect it would come under The Great Paul f's list of 'Unfair Terms'. And we can't argue with that :rolleyes:

Having said that, any tenant who agrees to such a clause must want their bumps feeling (in my considered opinion).

On reflection I will amend my wording to 'I think this would be unenforceable, unless you were unlcuky enough to get a really mean, nitpicky judge'. There. Is that better?

jeffrey
19-03-2009, 17:55 PM
If LL tries to dodge this obligation by writing in a clause like the one quoted above, I suspect it would come under The Great Paul f's list of 'Unfair Terms'. And we can't argue with that.
I can and do.


On reflection I will amend my wording to 'I think this would be unenforceable, unless you were unlcuky enough to get a really mean, nitpicky judge'. There. Is that better?
No. All clauses are enforceable unless you were unlucky enough to get a really naive judge who holds them 'unfair'. Even that slender possibility can be avoided by individually-negotiating the contents of the Tenancy Agreement.

'Nitpicky'? No, just unlcuky [sic]. That's just how the unlcuky crumbles.

mind the gap
19-03-2009, 18:02 PM
I can and do.. Good. Just testing.



No. All clauses are enforceable unless you were unlucky enough to get a really naive judge who holds them 'unfair'. Even that slender possibility can be avoided by individually-negotiating the contents of the Tenancy Agreement.. I did make this point (in my last paragraph).


'Nitpicky'? No, just unlcuky [sic]. That's just how the unlcuky crumbles. Actually, I meant 'unclucky'. Like a depressed hen.