Renting a flat, washing machine broke...

phill99

tbs624 wrote: »

'Out of a sense of fair play/ as a goodwill gesture as already stated.'

But you seem to fail to realise that this is not a game of Cricket where fair play is the norm. Private landlords are not social landlords. The own houses to make money, so will only spend the minimum necessary, which certainly doesn't include ' fair play payments'

What a home owner would do/have to pay out for is totally irrelevant.

'Not sure why you struggle with the fact that your analogy is not relevant: your washing machine (if you are an OO) clearly has nothing to with Mr C or your mortgagor. However, a washing machine in a rental is the responsibility of the LL if he has provided it and the inventory and tenancy agreement confirm that repairs/maintenance are the LLs responsibility'

But we don't know where responsibility lies.

'There is a difference between compensation and appropriate reimbursement of additional costs.'

In this case, it amounts to the same thing. I'm simply trying to suggest that nobody is willing to put up with a little inconvenience any more. And if they have to, they expect. someone else to pay.
Plus the OP was expecting the EA to pay 'additional costs', when the responsibility for the WM lies with the LL, so why should the EA pay.

'The point has already been made that much depends on how long the T would be without the use of the washing machine, provision of which ( in working order) is part of the tenancy deal in this case'

Your correction is acknowedged

'Do you find it hard to put your point across without abbreviated expletives?'

No, but thank you for your concern.

..........

tbs624

phill99 wrote:

But you seem to fail to realise that this is not a game of Cricket where fair play is the norm. Private landlords are not social landlords. The own houses to make money, so will only spend the minimum necessary, which certainly doesn't include ' fair play payments'

I don't think that you are able to speak for all PRS LLs - many do have a distinct sense of fair play, more so than those working in an HA or local Council. Making money absolutely does not preclude that

phill99 wrote:

But we don't know where responsibility lies.

The OP has already said that the LL is responsible for the maint/repair under the tenancy agreement. As has already been said, no one is suggesting that a week/10 days without a washer would be an unmanageable inconvenience.

phill99 wrote:

Plus the OP was expecting the EA to pay 'additional costs', when the responsibility for the WM lies with the LL, so why should the EA pay.

Many Ts deal only with the LL via the LA, usually down to the LL's own preference. It's often simply a figure of speech for a T to say that they seek x from the LA - clearly since the LA is.. erm ...the LL's agent requests can be made via the LA and monies from the LL can be paid out via the LA .

The subject of the OP will hopefully find the engineer will have the machine fixed within the next 48 hours

Lavendyr

tbs624 wrote: »

I think most would agree you with you if the repair is completed within a reasonable time. Much depends on how any request for reimbursement was actually phrased and ,as already stated, how long the T had been without the use of the washer.

Yep, agreed. I didn't read from the OP that the time had been unreasonable but may have misread.

tbs624 wrote: »

As for a retaliatory S21, LL would in turn probably end up with a void as T would be likely to refuse to allow viewings and sit tight until that court order was obtained.

Possibly. Depends on the property and the area. I wouldn't like to assume in this market, but again take your point. OP's friend will surely have a reasonable perspective on the situation in their area, though, and should take that into account when deciding how to proceed.

tbs624 wrote: »

One LL describing a former T as a serial complainer ( even if that were true) is unlikely to put off all future potential LLs. Most LLs simply want to know if you (a) paid the rent in full and on time , and (b) if you looked after the property. Those who are experienced LLs understand that some LLs and some Ts just rub each other up the wrong way.

Fair point but you still end up, as the tenant, with the hassle of securing another rental, recovering deposit, etc.

My comment was purely to caution the OP not to exhort his friend to exercise his rights just for the sake of it. If there is reasonable cause, fine, but ultimately it could end up being more trouble than it's worth to do so and personally, as a tenant, I would weigh up all facts & circumstances before pushing things further.

That call is up to OP's friend to make, of course.

jamesd

Landlord has a reasonable time to get things done. A washing machine isn't as significant as say the only heating failing and at least a week would be reasonable. Asking for reimbursement of washing costs if it takes a week or so would cause the tenant to be considered an undesirable hassle more than anything else and would help to ensure that the landlord took care to regularly increase rental levels to cover the increased hassles.

It seems that the parking bay is probably included in the tenancy. If so, get the landlord's agent to take care of the fines. If it's a private company doing the parking enforcement, the private company is working for the landlord or the group of owners and should be reasonable when approached by their customer, the landlord. They would expect some initial glitches and won't be surprised by a few cases like this one. The parking enforcement company, when told that they have tried to fine the authorised tenant and user of the bay, should sop chasing for money and start chasing for confirmation of the situation. Otherwise they would be irritating their customers again.

Make sure that they know enough not to become high hassle tenants. Such people end up ensuring that they get regular what the market will bear rent increases, while those who are minimal hassle may when dealing directly with a landlord see minimal rent increases for years because they are keeping costs and hassle down for both parties.