White goods fail at the start of the tenancy

Yorkie1

Insofar as it will be difficult for the LL to prove safety without an inspection then yes, you have a point.

But there is absolutely no requirement in law, which is what you are seeking, for the electrics to be specifically checked at any given time or given interval, and it does not provide you with any grounds for challenging their reliability. Just because they break does not mean that they pose a danger to health and safety, which is what the law deals with.

The only reason I mentioned damp was because you brought it up and were citing it as a reason to get revenge on the LL. The two are completely distinct and do not cancel themselves out / cannot be played one against the other.

If the LL refuses to negotiate then you are back to the suggestions which I previously made.

schweppes31

Actually there is, as we were led to believe everything was A-ok, hence me going on about our expectations and what we have been told etc.

• "It is well established that a statement that a vendor is not aware of a defect in title carries with it an implied representation that he has taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether any exists. This may require him, in the first instance, to examine his title deeds and other records, inspect the property, and obtain legal advice. If there is anything to put him on inquiry as to the existence of a defect, he may have to pursue the matter further by questioning others, or examining their documents .. the answer 'Not so far as the vendor is aware' represents not merely that the vendor and his solicitor had no actual knowledge of a defect, but also that they have made such investigations as could reasonably be expected to be made by or under the guidance of a prudent conveyancer.". (GW's emphasis)

The only reason I mentioned damp was because you brought it up and were citing it as a reason to get revenge on the LL. The two are completely distinct and do not cancel themselves out / cannot be played one against the other.

Again... misrepresentation. We were told it would be fixed. It hasn't been. They are the same.

• "Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable nowithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable grounds to believe and did believe up to the time of the contract was made that the facts represented were true."

It is not about revenge. When I litigate cases we claim for everything we can... everything... the scope must be as wide as possible. Requested remedies are then dropped during negotiation until we end up with what we would originally have wanted. It looks like a compromise, but isn't. Of course that is IP, not property, but the principle in negotiation is the same.

Yorkie1

With respect, you've cited something which is completely unrelated to renting a house. That relates to the legal title in the conveyancing process and is totally different.

I understand that you're angry about this. But that doesn't change what the law says about the LL's repairing obligations in a tenancy. You've been advised by a number of us on here what the law is, and I'm sorry you don't like it - but continuing to argue with us isn't going to change the position.

Furthermore, as the fridge broke after you'd moved in, clearly it was working when you moved in. Noise doesn't necessarily mean it's about to break - mine has been like a tank since I bought it. The LL was correct in his representation at the time you took over the tenancy that the fridge was working.

ognum

I am really sorry to hear this, yet again it gives good landlords a bad name. I would replace the fridge or get it repaired, no questions.

It's not about the law is it, it's about providing an appropriate service!

schweppes31

I understand that you're angry about this. But that doesn't change what the law says about the LL's repairing obligations in a tenancy. You've been advised by a number of us on here what the law is, and I'm sorry you don't like it - but continuing to argue with us isn't going to change the position.

Wrong again. It is about misrepresentation with regards to property contracts. It is NOT about conveyancing specifically.

One key part of contract law is that if party A misrepresents their position to party B, and party B then signs the contract on the basis of the misrepresentation it is not lawful. We were told the appliances were in good working order and when asked if there had been any problems with them the property manager said "not as far as we are aware". We would never have signed the contract but for that as we specifically want somewhere with working appliances, this was specified at the time! We find out later that they have not been checked for safety, and even better one of them fails within a few days.

I refer you to section 2 of the misrepresentation act, 1967.

"Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be, or has been, rescinded, the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party."

The case I cited refers to the key phrase "not that the seller is aware" and this is what the case dealt with, not about conveyancing but about trying to establish a legal footing for the "not as far as we are aware" phrase. When using that phrase according to the court it implies that the seller has taken measures to investigate the true position. Clearly they haven't, they don't even have the safety stuff for the appliances.

It seems that whilst we can't actually force the landlord to fix the broken appliances, we can force him to adhere to the law with regards to contracts and claim for damages equal to the costs incurred by fixing the appliances by using the Sindall case as the authority in the matter, and of course, the Misrepresentation Act.... had we not asked about the appliances in an email which got a reply we'd be stuck up the creek about this. Then there's the damp to fix which we were promised would be and hasn't... and a four inch wide hole in the exterior wall in the study that was nicely hidden by a bucket when we viewed the property (for this we pay £800 a month).

Silly me though for assuming the landlord was actually legally required to make sure the appliances were working for a certain period. It seems reasonable, and is certainly a moral thing to do, but it doesn't seem to be the law which surprises me. I can think of no other transaction in today's society that works like that. You certainly couldn't sell a house with fitted appliances that then immediately fail unless you'd checked they were in good working order before and had the paper work to show it.

ruggedtoast

schweppes31 wrote: »

Wrong again. It is about misrepresentation with regards to property contracts. It is NOT about conveyancing specifically.

One key part of contract law is that if party A misrepresents their position to party B, and party B then signs the contract on the basis of the misrepresentation it is not lawful. We were told the appliances were in good working order and when asked if there had been any problems with them the property manager said "not as far as we are aware". We would never have signed the contract but for that as we specifically want somewhere with working appliances, this was specified at the time! We find out later that they have not been checked for safety, and even better one of them fails within a few days.

I refer you to section 2 of the misrepresentation act, 1967.

The case I cited refers to the key phrase "not that the seller is aware" and this is what the case dealt with, not about conveyancing but about trying to establish a legal footing for the "not as far as we are aware" phrase. When using that phrase according to the court it implies that the seller has taken measures to investigate the true position. Clearly they haven't, they don't even have the safety stuff for the appliances.

It seems that whilst we can't actually force the landlord to fix the broken appliances, we can force him to adhere to the law with regards to contracts and claim for damages equal to the costs incurred by fixing the appliances by using the Sindall case as the authority in the matter, and of course, the Misrepresentation Act.... had we not asked about the appliances in an email which got a reply we'd be stuck up the creek about this. Then there's the damp to fix which we were promised would be and hasn't... and a four inch wide hole in the exterior wall in the study that was nicely hidden by a bucket when we viewed the property (for this we pay £800 a month).

Silly me though for assuming the landlord was actually legally required to make sure the appliances were working for a certain period. It seems reasonable, and is certainly a moral thing to do, but it doesn't seem to be the law which surprises me. I can think of no other transaction in today's society that works like that. You certainly couldn't sell a house with fitted appliances that then immediately fail unless you'd checked they were in good working order before and had the paper work to show it.

It is rubbish isn't it. Unfortunately that's renting in the UK, you have the right to complain, and the landlord has the right to ignore you and then issue a S21.

Thats why most people hate renting, landlords have to do very little to comply with their minimum requirements, and can avoid even those for long periods of time just by being obstinate.

I think you need to find out if you are meant to keep the fridge or if you can dump it and replace it with one of your own.

G_M

schweppes31 wrote: »

Wrong again. It is about misrepresentation with regards to property contracts. It is NOT about conveyancing specifically.

One key part of contract law is that if party A misrepresents their position to party B, and party B then signs the contract on the basis of the misrepresentation it is not lawful. We were told the appliances were in good working order and when asked if there had been any problems with them the property manager said "not as far as we are aware". We would never have signed the contract but for that as we specifically want somewhere with working appliances, this was specified at the time! We find out later that they have not been checked for safety, and even better one of them fails within a few days.

I refer you to section 2 of the misrepresentation act, 1967.

The case I cited refers to the key phrase "not that the seller is aware" and this is what the case dealt with, not about conveyancing but about trying to establish a legal footing for the "not as far as we are aware" phrase. When using that phrase according to the court it implies that the seller has taken measures to investigate the true position. Clearly they haven't, they don't even have the safety stuff for the appliances.

It seems that whilst we can't actually force the landlord to fix the broken appliances, we can force him to adhere to the law with regards to contracts and claim for damages equal to the costs incurred by fixing the appliances by using the Sindall case as the authority in the matter, and of course, the Misrepresentation Act.... had we not asked about the appliances in an email which got a reply we'd be stuck up the creek about this. Then there's the damp to fix which we were promised would be and hasn't... and a four inch wide hole in the exterior wall in the study that was nicely hidden by a bucket when we viewed the property (for this we pay £800 a month).

Silly me though for assuming the landlord was actually legally required to make sure the appliances were working for a certain period. It seems reasonable, and is certainly a moral thing to do, but it doesn't seem to be the law which surprises me. I can think of no other transaction in today's society that works like that. You certainly couldn't sell a house with fitted appliances that then immediately fail unless you'd checked they were in good working order before and had the paper work to show it.

Good luck with your legal action.

Let us know how it turns out in court.

SavvyStudentSaver

Just out of interest, how do you intend to prove misrepresentation? Because "they said so" isn't likely to hold up, and usually when you rent, you agree to take the property as seen unless you have written confirmation otherwise.

anselld

Presumably there is an inventory?
Did you sign the inventory, hence accepting the condition of the appliances at the start of tenancy?
If faulty goods were supplied at the start then these should not have been accepted on the inventory. If they were working at the start (as evidenced by the signed inventory) then what happens thereafter is dictated by the contract you have signed.

tbs624

OP - I would have insisted on a working demonstration of any white goods, plus evidence of their age and the most recent servicing/electrical safety checks before signing up to a repairs clause.

LL is clearly a muppet - having secured professional Ts after a void period then he ought to want to retain them. Get a written quote for the repair work and ask the LL to make a goodwill gesture towards the cost given that the breakdown occurred so early in the tenancy.

If a repair is not cost effective then , as someone else has already said, take the new one with you when you leave the tenancy and leave the LL with a second hand model similar to the ropey one supplied to you.

On the damp issue and the hole in the wall, the LL has strict repairing obligations covering maintaining the exterior of the property - google S11 of the LL&T Act 1985. If a LL does not sort the damp issue out he runs the risk of a T asking the local Council's EHO and/or private sector tenancy relations officer being asked to assess the property under HHSRS ( Housing Health and Safety Rating System). Report all repairs and maintenance issues in writing ( keep copies) - if dealt with in person or via phone then write following up your understanding of what action ( if any ) was agreed.