Ethical dilemma - moving out in a month, should I pay for a repair

Idiophreak

Judith_W wrote: »

Idiophreak - BUT the OP didn't break anything by themselves. If they did the burden is clearly on the OP to put right. I would assume if the TV broke through no-one's fault they would all be responsible for replacing, but as the others are getting to own that once bought and not the OP, that has to count for something.

Why?

Unless I'm mis-reading the situation, the OP and friends didn't actually pay for the last washing machine, it was there when they moved in (albeit brand new). They haven't been paying for it monthly as SC suggests (otherwise they'd just get the LL to replace it) and now it's broken. So all the people in the house have had use of that washing machine for the last 18 months and none of them have paid anything. Now they need to pay something for having used the washing machine for all that time.

Had they paid for the machine in the first place, you'd be right...the OP would have already paid for their 18 months of use once and shouldn't be expected to pay for *another* 18 months worth of washing machine when they're just about to leave. As it is, it's not fair that the OP should get their 18months for free and everyone else has to pay to repair the damage they've collectively done.

societys_child

Idiophreak wrote: »

OK, so they break their bed. Or their desk. Or the sofa. Or the cooker. Or anything else for that matter? They're not going to be using any of this stuff next year, so they're free to do what they want, right?

If the OP had chucked a brick into the washing machine and broken it, would you feel the same way? They're not going to be using the new one, so why should they pay? In the actual event, OP may not have thrown a brick in, but they *have* contributed to the wear and tear that's caused the machine to fail - and so they *are* responsible for contributing to the repair costs.

I'm sorry if my analogy came across as stupid, but I'd rather a stupid analogy than a stupid argument.

The op nor anyone else has purposely damaged the machine. They all paid for it indirectly, had use of it equally and now it's dead. That's it. I don't understand why the op should contribute to a new one if she will not benefit from it, unless she receives a rebate when she leaves?

Idiophreak wrote: »

Why?

Unless I'm mis-reading the situation, the OP and friends didn't actually pay for the last washing machine, it was there when they moved in (albeit brand new). They haven't been paying for it monthly as SC suggests (otherwise they'd just get the LL to replace it) and now it's broken. So all the people in the house have had use of that washing machine for the last 18 months and none of them have paid anything.

You don't think, just maybe, the LL covered the cost in the rent?

Now they need to pay something for having used the washing machine for all that time.

Had they paid for the machine in the first place, you'd be right...

There you go then, of course they've paid for it, one way or another.

the OP would have already paid for their 18 months of use once and shouldn't be expected to pay for *another* 18 months worth of washing machine when they're just about to leave. As it is, it's not fair that the OP should get their 18months for free and everyone else has to pay to repair the damage they've collectively done.

Idiophreak

societys_child wrote: »

They all paid for it indirectly...You don't think, just maybe, the LL covered the cost in the rent?

I don't see why you think the LL covered the cost of this in rent? If maintenance of the white goods was included in the rent, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The LL would say "well, they've paid me every month to maintain this thing, now it's broken down, I've got to fix it". If the tenants pay for something to be maintained, the LL has to maintain it.

The fact that the tenants, in this case, are being made to pay shows implicitly that they've not paid for maintenance of the washing machine as part of their rent.

Here, as the OP said in post 1, the LLs provided a washing machine and signed it over to the tenant as their responsibility to maintain. Therefore they do not pay the landlord anything to maintain this, but are responsible for fixing/replacing it when wear and tear takes its toll. OP is part-responsible for this wear and tear, so is part-responsible for the repair/replacement costs.