Landlord pays bills but says we are using too much gas and electricity

Pincher

HMO, hmmm....

So if the landlord, or BF's dad indeed put insulation in the roof,
installed double glazing, solid wall insulation, fire door, smoke alarm, etc. to bring it up to spec, and then increased the rent per head by £20 a week per tenant, everybody will be happier?

Or are the tenants going to have a meeting, and find another house cheaper, HMO standard not high on the list?

Fire_Fox

There is only a very limited link between the landlord's legal obligation to bring the property up to HMO spec and a rent increase: he can only increase the rent in line with the local market, the remaining costs will have to come out of his profits and can probably be offset against income tax. I am afraid repairs, maintenance and improvements are part and parcel of landlording. If he doesn't do the fire door/ fire alarm thing and there is an incident ... he could very well find himself in new accommodation himself at her majesty's pleasure.

AFAIK it is not necessary to insulate the loft AND cavity walls AND install double glazing, but the landlord does need to bring the property up to a minimum standard. If it is in the contract that the landlord pays the utility bills it may well make financial sense to partially insulate the property. Neither loft nor cavity wall insulation are particularly expensive and there are grants/ discounts available which I believe tenants can apply for - the OP could be asked to do that.

savingsuperstar

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Somewhat off topic, but is this property/ tenancy even legal? Is it registered as a HMO if it needs to be? Either you live in a shared house with shared utilities OR you live in self contained accommodation in which case you would be liable for you own council tax and, usually, your own utilities. You do know that if a council tax rebanding occurs for your you can be liable for the backdated bill (absentee landlord is never liable for CT)?

Quite frankly your situation screams amateur landlord which makes me wonder what other laws are being flouted ... do you have a copy of the gas safety certificate for your boiler (mandatory)? Are there fire doors, fire alarms and accessible fire escapes? If not my vote would be to jump ship now and anonymously report your BF's father to Environmental Health for the safety of the other residents.

Currently our bathroom water supply isn't working and we're using upstairs, so not self-contained at the mo. Also we share a front door and the door to our flat is a normal inner door so I don't think it could be considered a separate residence.

I didn't know that about the council tax. But unlikely to be re-banded if it's shared, however it should be registered as an HMO with all the required checks and certificates, which it doesn't have.

I'm becoming more sceptical about his claims every day. He says our energy bills mean he's paying more in mortgage and bills than he gets in rent, but his figures don't add up to that.

So as you say, the best option will be to move.

Fire_Fox

savingsuperstar wrote: »

Currently our bathroom water supply isn't working and we're using upstairs, so not self-contained at the mo. Also we share a front door and the door to our flat is a normal inner door so I don't think it could be considered a separate residence.

I didn't know that about the council tax. But unlikely to be re-banded if it's shared, however it should be registered as an HMO with all the required checks and certificates, which it doesn't have.

I'm becoming more sceptical about his claims every day. He says our energy bills mean he's paying more in mortgage and bills than he gets in rent, but his figures don't add up to that.

So as you say, the best option will be to move.

The property is self contained if it is constructed in a particular way - own kitchen and bathroom, it is fine to share a street door - even if it is not used as such (e.g granny annexe). The fact that your bathroom is not functioning correctly is irrelevant, that probably means that your landlord is breaching YET ANOTHER piece of legislation. Please believe me that the VOA can reband your flat and they can backdate the charges.
http://www.mycounciltax.gov.uk/publications/public_fact_sheets/self-contained-units.html

Pincher

Fire_Fox wrote: »

There is only a very limited link between the landlord's legal obligation to bring the property up to HMO spec and a rent increase: he can only increase the rent in line with the local market, the remaining costs will have to come out of his profits and can probably be offset against income tax. I am afraid repairs, maintenance and improvements are part and parcel of landlording. If he doesn't do the fire door/ fire alarm thing and there is an incident ... he could very well find himself in new accommodation himself at her majesty's pleasure.

There isn't a connection from the legal obligation to the budget available for upgrade, there's a disconnecton.

Every householder WANTs to use roofers and builders who do things by the book, but they don't want to pay the full cost of complying with all the regulations, because after the mortgage payments, there's very little left. If you applied the HMO standard to every residential household, you will have to fine half the country for supplying substandard housing to themselves, inlcuding old ladies who live in houses with unmodernised wiring.

Further down the chain, every tenant WANTs to live in decent housing, but they don't want to pay the rent which reflect the full cost of the mortgage and upgrade costs. In an area where the tenants can afford £100 a week, they don't suddenly become able to pay £120 just because the landlords are charging £120. A landlord assesses the cost of upgrade, and sees himself losing money at £100, will simply sell the house or convert it into flats. The HMO regulation might sound good in theory, but it actually removes cheap housing for people on low income.

The HMO increases the cost of providing housing, but hasn't increased the ability of tenants to pay rent: that's the disconnect.

olly300

savingsuperstar wrote: »

Currently our bathroom water supply isn't working and we're using upstairs, so not self-contained at the mo. Also we share a front door and the door to our flat is a normal inner door so I don't think it could be considered a separate residence.

I didn't know that about the council tax. But unlikely to be re-banded if it's shared, however it should be registered as an HMO with all the required checks and certificates, which it doesn't have.

I use to live in a shared house where the granny annexe use to be part of the main house. It was separated off properly and they tenants who moved in there where not initially charged council tax.

The VOA found out when the place had become a separate dwelling and they had to pay 2 years back council tax. This was due to someone in the main house realising that they had been over paying council tax.

The landlord had separated water bills and the gas meter but for some reason hadn't separated the electricity meter. This was fine while everyone lived similar lifestyles but not when a guy moved in to the flat who decided that he was going to use electric heating because we were paying for it. The landlord soon dealt with him and until he got the meters separated made him pay the same as us.

The only real issue you have with the property is whether the landlord has complied with building and fire regulations.

I lived in another property where the landlord wanted to make a separate basement flat but due to the main house already being 3 stories worked out it wasn't worth it due to the building and fire regulations. We already had fire doors, a fire blanket in the kitchen, fire extinguishers on each floor, a proper fire alarm and emergency exits on the third floor.

savingsuperstar wrote: »

I'm becoming more sceptical about his claims every day. He says our energy bills mean he's paying more in mortgage and bills than he gets in rent, but his figures don't add up to that.

If you know his actual figures then you know what's true otherwise you can't speculate.

The only places I've rented where the bills where included in the rent access to the boiler was restricted by a locked door. This meant I couldn't control the heating. If the others have the heating on all the time then the access to the boiler controls could be locked.

bryanb

olly300 wrote: »

The only places I've rented where the bills where included in the rent access to the boiler was restricted by a locked door. This meant I couldn't control the heating. If the others have the heating on all the time then the access to the boiler controls could be locked.

Perhaps you missed the post where the OP said each flat has a seperate gas boiler.

kippen_noedel

The simple answer is, if you have a lease that states the bills are included, then the law is on your side. If it doesn't then you have no choice other than to negotiate and hope he is as "decent" as you think.

However, this is complicated because the landlord is related to one of the occupants.

If he has any intentions of doing this long term the landlord should improve the insulation of the property & at the same time make sure the cheapest tariffs are being utilised for the energy supply. From the way you talk about the draft proofing you installed, lol, I can't see the landlord being too interested in any form of investment but you must try.

Fire_Fox

Pincher wrote: »

There isn't a connection from the legal obligation to the budget available for upgrade, there's a disconnecton.

Every householder WANTs to use roofers and builders who do things by the book, but they don't want to pay the full cost of complying with all the regulations, because after the mortgage payments, there's very little left. If you applied the HMO standard to every residential household, you will have to fine half the country for supplying substandard housing to themselves, inlcuding old ladies who live in houses with unmodernised wiring.

Further down the chain, every tenant WANTs to live in decent housing, but they don't want to pay the rent which reflect the full cost of the mortgage and upgrade costs. In an area where the tenants can afford £100 a week, they don't suddenly become able to pay £120 just because the landlords are charging £120. A landlord assesses the cost of upgrade, and sees himself losing money at £100, will simply sell the house or convert it into flats. The HMO regulation might sound good in theory, but it actually removes cheap housing for people on low income.

The HMO increases the cost of providing housing, but hasn't increased the ability of tenants to pay rent: that's the disconnect.

Who has said anything about applying HMO regs to 'normal' residential properties?? In your own home it is your choice what safety precautions you opt to take or cut corners on, to a large extent you are only risking your immediate family's lives. In blocks of flats or bedsit-land it is a different kettle of fish: locked bedrooms reduce escape points.

The vast majority of HMO tenants are young people, the vast majority of whom can perfectly well afford an increase in rent if they economise elsewhere. How many young people do you know that DON'T have a mobile telephone? For those who are in genuine financial hardship there are means-tested benefits, a wealth of knowledge on websites like MSE or I would (and indeed have) suggest they relocate to a cheaper area.

And yes I do know what it is like to live on a low income, I have done so for the past eight years: my current income is well under the government poverty line and I am officially in fuel poverty. IMO there is no excuse for being anything other than a professional landlord - it is never acceptable for a business that is not profitable to break the law. I don't expect a landlord at the bottom end of the market to keep a rental property in immaculate condition, but it should be safe.