LL wants us to put £1000 of CH oil in tank before move out

clutton_2

OP will not have to appear.. the arbitrators will look at this case on the paper evidence presented to them by you and by the LL ..

some deposit schemes have recently down-graded their arbitration staff and also reduced staff sizing...

so.. make it as short and succinct as you can - they wont read wodges and wodges of stuff - try not to write about issues which have nothing to do with the deposit deduction.... old "wrongs" are not at issue here, just the practicalities of deposit deductions for breaches of tenancy - or not - as the case may be

as a landlord, to me, the bottom line here is that if there is nothing in the inventory, nor in the AST, then the landlord can claim nothing

good luck

Kaleidoscope1972

chappers wrote: »

Does it say in the tenancy agreement you are responsible for the oil, that is the crux of the matter, then proving the consumption is the next thing.
You say you have put two lotts of oil in the tank, how long did the first lot last, that would be the key to working out your consumption, for the whole of your tenancy.

no there is nothing in the agreement about being responsible for oil..just the usual stuff about utilities and ensuring final readings etc when we move.

we only moved in, in May 2009, we did not need heating until late August/Early september, my husband checked the oil level and said that there was little in there, so we ordered more oil which was delivered in September, the boiler then broke down.
We were then without heating until late October, when we fired the boiler back up again, the oil ran low by late November, so we had more delivered first week December..this has now run low..both times we had 500 litres delivered...therefore had there been 2500 litres in the tank as LL insists..we would never have needed to refill and in fact there would still have been a consuiderable amount in there.;)

Kaleidoscope1972

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I suggest that you don't get involved in that aspect for the moment. Just stick with the inventory and leave the proof of oil delivery until a more concrete attempt to charge you for oil. The less time they have to organise their defence the better.

Thanks, we will not pursue that then;)

Kaleidoscope1972

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

No, the key is 'Can the LL/LA prove how much oil was in the tank at the start of the tenancy?' I doubt it. Therefore it may have been empty or full or somewhere inbetween. The reasonable arbitrator can only assume it was empty as why would a LL/LA in their right mind NOT get written agreement as to how much oil was in there.

GG

agree, it seems odd that there would not be written proof, and I would certainly remember being told that there was such a large amount of oil in the tank at the start of our tenancy

clutton_2

playing devils advocate here for a while..... generally i suspect that arbiters would include oil in any mention of "utilities" in an AST as oil is the fuel..

... but it was the landlord's responsibility (and it could possibly be argued yours also) to have a written note of the amount of oil you inherited on move in... so be prepared to argeu your case here... you would have got meter readings for your gas/electric - an arbiter may argue the same could apply to oil..

Kaleidoscope1972

clutton wrote: »

playing devils advocate here for a while..... generally i suspect that arbiters would include oil in any mention of "utilities" in an AST as oil is the fuel..

... but it was the landlord's responsibility (and it could possibly be argued yours also) to have a written note of the amount of oil you inherited on move in... so be prepared to argeu your case here... you would have got meter readings for your gas/electric - an arbiter may argue the same could apply to oil..

appreciate that but to be honest, didnt expect there to be any oil in the tank as the house had been empty for a significant amount of time...I would like to think though that the arbitrators would consider it unusual for the LL to have delivered £1000 worth of oil prior to our move in?
Also if it comes to it..then surely the LL will have to produce proof that there was that much in the tank?

DVardysShadow

clutton wrote: »

playing devils advocate here for a while..... generally i suspect that arbiters would include oil in any mention of "utilities" in an AST as oil is the fuel..

... but it was the landlord's responsibility (and it could possibly be argued yours also) to have a written note of the amount of oil you inherited on move in... so be prepared to argeu your case here... you would have got meter readings for your gas/electric - an arbiter may argue the same could apply to oil..

Fair point as devil's advocate. But I would say oil is an inventory issue rather than a utility. Gas and electricity are not stored on the premises, oil however is. Thus, I would expect the inventory to be explicit as to the amount of oil if the LL expects more than an empty tank at the end.

Kaleidoscope1972

to be honest, we would have been hard pressed to itemise the oil as there is no oil guage on the tank, the only way we could tell how much was in it was to dip it....which I guess is why the LA didnt itemise it...

clutton_2

""then surely the LL will have to produce proof that there was that much in the tank?""

exactly - which is why i think, on balance, that you have an excellent case...

you can of course refuse to deal with the deposit scheme arbiters at all... in which case the LL will have to take you to court to get a decision made by a judge. in the small claims court ... and that would take months and months.....

That could be a "lever" you could use for a compromise agreeement - offer him £50 or whatever you think is reasonable according to the "dip-stick " and then at least you will be seen to have attempted some sort of conciliatory gesture if it does get to court.

Kaleidoscope1972

clutton wrote: »

""then surely the LL will have to produce proof that there was that much in the tank?""

exactly - which is why i think, on balance, that you have an excellent case...

you can of course refuse to deal with the deposit scheme arbiters at all... in which case the LL will have to take you to court to get a decision made by a judge. in the small claims court ... and that would take months and months.....

That could be a "lever" you could use for a compromise agreeement - offer him £50 or whatever you think is reasonable according to the "dip-stick " and then at least you will be seen to have attempted some sort of conciliatory gesture if it does get to court.

Thanks...when I phoned him and advised him the tank was low..and he conveyed his unhappiness..I did suggest to him that we put 500 litres in the tank which would cost us around £200....he refused this saying he wanted it filled to the top:mad:

so the offer was there