Advice re landlord repairs

Cubic

Hi, sorry for the long post, but hopefully I can get some advice.

I moved into a flat at the end of June. The flat is owned by a lady who lives in Spain, and so is managed by a local estate agency. I've had a problem with the shower attachment in the bath since I moved in. There's a little metal button that you pull up to make water come out of the shower and push down to make water come out of the taps. The little button came off the first time I used the shower and now it's stuck somewhere between making the water come out of the shower and the taps. When I use the shower I have a load of water coming out of the taps and some water coming out of the showerhead. I've tried using pliers, but I can't get the metal thing to budge.
It's annoying as a lot of water is being wasted out of the bath taps every time I go for a shower, and the hot water starts to run out if I'm in too long.

I told the estate agents about this back in June and they said they would get a plumber to fix the broken metal button. Four months later and I've heard from the estate agent saying that the part needed for my shower doesn't exist anymore. I've had very little help from the agents in this time and have had to chase them up to get anything to happen.

The agency has told me that the landlord is no longer prepared to fix the shower due to the expense of replacing the whole tap/shower fitting. They were happy to pay to fix just the little button, but not now they've found out it will cost a lot more.

Where do I stand with this now? Do I just have to accept what they've told me and put up with not having a correctly functioning shower for the rest of my tenancy?

I've checked my tenancy agreement and the only relevant part I can see is this, which mentions sanitary appliances, but not specifically showers:


3. Statutory Repairing Obligations
3.1 To comply with the obligations to repair the Premises as set out In sections 11 to 16 of the
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by the Housing Act 1988) These sections
Impose on the Landlord obligations to repair and keep in good order:
3.1.1 the structure of the Premises and exterior (including drains, gutters and pipes),
3.1.2 certain installations for the supply of water, electricity and gas,
3.1.3 sanitary appliances including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences,
3.1.4 space heating and water heating,
but not other fixtures fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water and
electricity. This obligation arises only after notice has been given to the Landlord by the
Tenant as set out In clause 4.2 of Schedule 1 of this Agreement
3.2 To repay to the Tenant any reasonable costs incurred by the Tenant to remedy the failure
of the Landlord to comply with his statutory obligations as stated in clause 3.1 of Schedule
2 above.

Beatmaker

I'd say its covered by 3.1.3 but I'm no expert. What I would say, and your experience doesn't change my opinion on this, is that Letting Agents are universally a bunch of *****.

antooony

yep its a sanitary appliance as outlined in section '3.1.3 sanitary appliances including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences'

Do you pay the water rates yourself?

I hate landlords like this, they're happy to take your money month after month yet at the first sign of a problem that they have to dip their hand into their pocket they don't want to know.

Get stroppy with the letting agent and tell them its part of your letting agreement that this be fixed at no cost to yourself.

peat

Have a go citing 3.1.3 in a snotty letter. Hopefully it scares them enough just to replace the flippin tap! It's not THAT much!

Or, they could be real bastids and argue that they have provided working sanitary appliances as water does run out of them.

Good luck.

estampida

And if the plumber was called in to fix it and no spare was available, he would replace

unless told not to by the agent / owner...... (at a guess)

Cleat Eastwood

bonjour bonjour - the landlord has to repair - for that be the law - but you must tell the landlord/letting agent either by letter or phone call. If he/she refuses go to the CAB or contact environmental health for such watery things can harbour disease.

some advice here.

Cubic

Thank you guys (merci Cleat )

I will contact the letting agency again and and cite the relevant section in my tenancy agreement. Hopefully they'll just do what they're supposed to do. Things are rarely that simple though.....

I have also come to the same conclusion about letting agents. They bend over backwards to help until you sign a contract, then they couldn't care less.

lakesluddite

Cubic wrote:

Thank you guys (merci Cleat )

I will contact the letting agency again and and cite the relevant section in my tenancy agreement. Hopefully they'll just do what they're supposed to do. Things are rarely that simple though.....

I have also come to the same conclusion about letting agents. They bend over backwards to help until you sign a contract, then they couldn't care less.

Maybe true, but there are some good ones out there too. Ours just replaced our built in oven at the first time of asking, the old one had a faulty dial and the fan sounded like a 747 taking off, but still worked. I came home from work one day, and there it was, nice and shiny and ready to use.

Saying that, our previous ones had let a damp problem at our previous flat go untreated for the best part of eight years!

tiredofwhiners

Give them X weeks to resolve, and say you'll pay someone else to do it and deduct it from one of the payments ?

Letting agencies are worse than useless but you shouldn't have let them go for months without a solution - they now know you're a soft touch, so if you can go into their office/shop and kick up a polite fuss there where others can hear it. Be polite but don't let them go until you have them on the phone to the owner and have it sorted. Be prepared to sit in the office while they try the number several times in front of you.

GiantMike

Just a couple of quick points.

Letting agents act as agents for the Landlord. They do not own the property and their fee/commission is not affected by the repairs done to the property. It sounds like it's your landlord who is the problem.

Withholding payment without prior agreement may leave you liable to court action to recover the funds and could count against you in a credit search.

Write/tell the letting agent that you want the problem repaired ASAP or you want a written statement why the repair won't/can't be undertaken. Explain that, in your opinion the shower unit does not function as designed or how the property was let to you. You should have signed a 'schedule of condition' detailing the contents and condition of every fitment in the property and this will detail that the shower works. If it no longer works, it's the landlord's responsibility to repair it or he breaches contract. The excuse that it is expensive to repair is not a justified reason for not repairing it.

If this does not get the problem resolved, speak to the Citizens' Advice Bureau for advice.

As an aside, if there is any doubt as to the shower working, I'd make sure the f*cker didn't work at all. That's an entirely different situation to it partially working. But that's just me.

disgruntledgoat

Cubic wrote:

Thank you guys (merci Cleat )

I will contact the letting agency again and and cite the relevant section in my tenancy agreement. Hopefully they'll just do what they're supposed to do. Things are rarely that simple though.....

I have also come to the same conclusion about letting agents. They bend over backwards to help until you sign a contract, then they couldn't care less.

This

We've just moved out of a house where, in a 2 year tenancy, we put up with 3 weeks without hot water or heating because they couldn't afford to replace it and 6 months without a functioning washing machine whilst they attmepted to get Comet to honour a warranty. I didn' even complain when they put the rent up.

Then we move out and they complain that the house smells like dogs (because they gave us written permission to keep dogs!), the carpets are not pristine and there are marks on the walls. This, they claim, will cost thousands to remedy.

pb21

I have had mixed luck with landlords, some are reasonable with getting things fixed and returning deposits when leaving, others drag things out and take you to the cleaners when leaving, it’s a risky business.

I also refuse to go with a letting agency with their extortionate fees.

natrix

As a landlord I must say that I've had mixed luck with tenants, so it goes both ways. Some are fine, but others are very unreasonable (a current tenant has just changed the locks). Seems to me it's human nature, some people are OK, but some are.............. :evil: :evil:

For what it's worth, I'd change the shower unit straight away

jibberjim

natrix wrote:

(a current tenant has just changed the locks).

It's perfectly legal for a tennant to change the locks, and there's no reason for a landlord to think otherwise - why do you?

natrix

jibberjim wrote:

It's perfectly legal for a tennant to change the locks

It might be legal, but it's not a reasonable thing to do when she doesn't tell anybody, is going to be moving out and the letting agent wants to show prospective new tenants round. Especially when I have bent over backwards to help her out in the past (even went round to show her how a thermostat works).

jibberjim

natrix wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

It's perfectly legal for a tennant to change the locks

It might be legal, but it's not a reasonable thing to do when she doesn't tell anybody, is going to be moving out and the letting agent wants to show prospective new tenants round. Especially when I have bent over backwards to help her out in the past (even went round to show her how a thermostat works).

If the letting agent was trying to gain access to the property without obtaining the appropriate permission from the tennant then that sounds exactly like the situation when the tennant should be changing the locks.

Changing the locks is not illegal, it's even advised for tennants who have letting agents and landlords who feel they have the right to access as you obviously appear to do.

Providing the required information on how to work required facillities doesn't sound like "bending over backwards" - it sounds like meeting your minimum obligations as a landlord I'm afraid.

natrix

jibberjim wrote:

Changing the locks is not illegal, it's even advised for tennants who have letting agents and landlords who feel they have the right to access as you obviously appear to do.

It is not illegal, but it is written into the tenancy agreement. Also in the tenancy agreement the tenant should allow the landlord reasonable access, i.e. the landlord gives at least 24 hours written notice and in my case negotiates reasonable dates and times. For the tenant to agree a date and time, knowing that she won't be there and the keys won't work, is in my book, unreasonable beahviour.

Working a thermostat is as simple as turning a light switch on, it's hardly rocket science and an adult shouldn't really need it showing to them.

But heh, landlords are all money grabbing capitalist pigs, so feel free to have a go 8) 8)

jibberjim

natrix wrote:

It is not illegal, but it is written into the tenancy agreement.

So? Tenancy agreements often contain clauses which are completely unenforceable due to the law overriding them - it's a common tactic to scare the unaware tennant into not enforcing their rights.

natrix wrote:

For the tenant to agree a date and time, knowing that she won't be there and the keys won't work, is in my book, unreasonable beahviour.

Serve her notice to leave then... And pick tennants that match your expectations of how they should behave. Or perhaps offer her an incentive to help you let the property - she has no reason at all to go out of her way to help you, you have lots of motivation to avoid any nil-rent period. Change the incentives and she'll be a lot more helpful.

natrix wrote:

But heh, landlords are all money grabbing capitalist pigs, so feel free to have a go 8) 8)

Not at all, nothing wrong with investing - it just amazes me how many landlords don't know the law, don't run it as a business but get emotionally involved in their properties etc. It's a business treat it as such, and yes deposit protection means that the end of tennancy balance is in favour of the tennant so they don't have any need to keep the landlord on side by making access easy.

Wulz

I would move elsewhere, might be a hastle but this current situation shows you all you need to know about the landlords attitude to you. Next repair will be the same all over and you dont want that hanging over you.

Im a landlord and i would pay to get it sorted, next time my tenants move out up here in Edinburgh youre more than welcome to come and rent from me!

Hope you get things sorted one way or another.

Mayniac

Was the property originally advertised as having a shower? If so, then failure to maintain it could be a breach of contract, even if such provision is not mentioned in the rental agreement; (unlikely). Any legal bods on here?

disgruntledgoat

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Cubic wrote:

Thank you guys (merci Cleat )

I will contact the letting agency again and and cite the relevant section in my tenancy agreement. Hopefully they'll just do what they're supposed to do. Things are rarely that simple though.....

I have also come to the same conclusion about letting agents. They bend over backwards to help until you sign a contract, then they couldn't care less.

This

We've just moved out of a house where, in a 2 year tenancy, we put up with 3 weeks without hot water or heating because they couldn't afford to replace it and 6 months without a functioning washing machine whilst they attmepted to get Comet to honour a warranty. I didn' even complain when they put the rent up.

Then we move out and they complain that the house smells like dogs (because they gave us written permission to keep dogs!), the carpets are not pristine and there are marks on the walls. This, they claim, will cost thousands to remedy.

Holy thread ressurrection batman!

Now they're threatening to sue me for £1,700!

jibberjim

For what? Call Shelter for advice.

The 1700 is for damage presumably? What happened with the deposit and the Protection Scheme?

disgruntledgoat

jibberjim wrote:

For what? Call Shelter for advice.

The 1700 is for damage presumably? What happened with the deposit and the Protection Scheme?

They are alleging that the £1000 deposit has been absorbed into the £2,700 of work they need to do to get the house back to the standard in which it was let. They allege that the garden needs to be returfed (I'll cop to that), that every carpet in the house is beyond saving and needs to be replaced, that a window frame is rotten, that there are marks on the walls from our dogs (which we had written permission to keep) and finally that for 18 months I allowed the dogs to defacate in the house (because this was obviously in my interests).

I'm not sure if the money is in a deposit scheme, as the landlords moved out of the agreement with the agency after 6 months of the 18 month let and we've not heard anything since.

Now we spent 3 days cleaning the place as we were moving out, and my first instinct is that the place was in no way that bad a state.

jibberjim

If the money isn't in a deposit scheme, assuming it's a vaguely normal England/Wales lease, then the landlord is screwed, go spend 150 quid on a court summons and get the deposit back and probably 3 times extra as a penalty off them for failing to protect it.

Call Shelter though for advice, and your local council housing guys can be good too.

A landlord does not have the right to return the property to the condition it was let either remember - you have fair wear and tear and if you have permission to have dogs in a house then fair wear and tear would be considerable.

GiantMike

As a point of clarification, the permission to keep dogs does not absolve you of the responsibility for any damage they cause beyond reasonable wear and tear. An an example, if your dog chewed the corners of all the doors then you are responsible for the damage unless the landlord agreed that he would take the responsibility for your dog's potential damage.

Do you have photos of the place when you moved in? What's your opinion of the carpets? Did your dogs sh!t in the house?

GiantMike

jibberjim wrote:

A landlord does not have the right to return the property to the condition it was let either remember - you have fair wear and tear and if you have permission to have dogs in a house then fair wear and tear would be considerable.

I disagree with the bit in bold, unless the landlord accepted this arrangement beforehand. As a landlord, if somebody wants to keep a dog in my house I will let them but I wouldn't expect or accept extra wear and tear.

jibberjim

GiantMike wrote:

I disagree with the bit in bold, unless the landlord accepted this arrangement beforehand. As a landlord, if somebody wants to keep a dog in my house I will let them but I wouldn't expect or accept extra wear and tear.

The deposit protection adjudicators don't agree, fair wear and tear does depend on who lives in the property - which is reasonable, you don't expect the same wear and tear from a single pensioner as a family with 4 young children and pets. And unfortunately for Landlords their views aren't that relevant any more.

GiantMike

jibberjim wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

I disagree with the bit in bold, unless the landlord accepted this arrangement beforehand. As a landlord, if somebody wants to keep a dog in my house I will let them but I wouldn't expect or accept extra wear and tear.

The deposit protection adjudicators don't agree, fair wear and tear does depend on who lives in the property - which is reasonable, you don't expect the same wear and tear from a single pensioner as a family with 4 young children and pets. And unfortunately for Landlords their views aren't that relevant any more.

Is this fact? Where did you get this from?

jibberjim

GiantMike wrote:

Is this fact? Where did you get this from?

Experience, but
See e.g. here which gives description of the process the adjudicators do:
"If you are letting to a family with children, factor that in too. Scuffs and scrapes are
unavoidable in normal family life. A property occupied by a single person should see far less
wear than a family of four, so bear this in mind when it’s time for tenants to check-out."

disgruntledgoat

GiantMike wrote:

As a point of clarification, the permission to keep dogs does not absolve you of the responsibility for any damage they cause beyond reasonable wear and tear. An an example, if your dog chewed the corners of all the doors then you are responsible for the damage unless the landlord agreed that he would take the responsibility for your dog's potential damage.

Do you have photos of the place when you moved in? What's your opinion of the carpets? Did your dogs sh!t in the house?

Why would I allow that to happen? We do have photos of the place from when I viewed it, I hadn't thought of that!

In my opinion, the carpets could do with a clean from a carpet cleaner, like most carpets after 18 months of living somewhere. The dogs have not chewed or destroyed anything and the claim is for marks on the walls (which I scrubbed for ages but obviously not enough) and an alleged smell of dogs.

I think the issue here is an emotive one. They haven't been in the house for 2 years and it was their own home before they let it out. The e-mail indicating intention to proceed with legal action makes references to "a lovely rug" and "my own son's nursery". I also know they want to try and sell the place, but it isnt my job, as a tenant, to maintain the value of their investment.

GiantMike

jibberjim wrote:

See e.g. here

Interesting document, but no mention of pets from what I could see.