Help for my sister please

thesaint

franklee wrote:

The fact from you I take issue with is from post #50:



We agree that there is no time limit in the legislation to get these repairs done but why does it follow that the landlord has not broken the law?

The Landlord and Tenant Act and rach!'s contract state the landlord will keep in repair and proper working order the installation at the property for space heating and heating water.

So how does a lack of time limit to get repairs done mean the landlord has not breached this given the hot water is broken?

Can you explain if and when the landlord would be in breach over the hot water not working in your opinion?

I note that paul_f in the post I'd linked to says a tenant is entitled to hot water at ALL times, seems reasonable for something that must be KEPT in proper working order, although practically a reasonable time for repair should be allowed. (If something is kept in repair it isn't left broken so you could say the repair should be done immediately).

You've read my post from a few days ago. I quite clearly state a course of action that will get the heating and water fixed. The tenant can be proactive and get the repairs done if this is what they require.

The point I make about no time limit is too show that it then becomes a matter of guesswork as to what is reasonable, I agree with you that a week is enough time(As stated in my post of a few days ago).
Whether the tenant thinks 24 hours, Paul F thinks 48 hours, you and I think 7 days shows that interpretation should not be relied on alone.

Witholding rent does not afford such leeway, and the landlady can take the tenant to court and the tenant will then have to pay the rent and court costs, so(in my opinion) not a good way of dealing with the situation because it still will not guarantee the heating and hot water being fixed.

The enviromental health officers in my area are laughable, I once worked at a housing association and they(EHO) visited a property and made an order to carry out work, they returned a year later and the work(including fireproofing a ceiling) had not even been started. They wrote back saying that the work needs to be carried out(Giving three months).

That's the only reason why I do not advise getting them involved, the tenant would have an eviction order before the work is done. If the tenant paid the court fees, eventually got to court, would a Judge say that the landlady had to get the work done when they have an expired eviction order?

None of this ducking and diving is right, but it's how the system works at present.

If the OP's sister is not bothered about leaving as she stated, then she should leave, if housing was so easy to find, I don't know why she is still there.

I hope my well meaning advice, coupled with my lack of experience has not offended you too much.

franklee

thesaint wrote:

You've read my post from a few days ago. I quite clearly state a course of action that will get the heating and water fixed. The tenant can be proactive and get the repairs done if this is what they require.

I think were this is going wrong is in the mixing up of two issues:

1. What is a reasonable timescale for a fix.

2. If and when the landlord has broken the law / is in breach of contract.

Rach! was shot down for what she'd read on a website about the landlord having broken the law after 24 hours when that turns out to be correct. (Although the law isn't written in those terms).

In your post #50 you state that the landlord hasn't broken the law. This is incorrect. This matters for two reasons:

1. The tenant is entitled to compensation for all of the days without hot water, the amount of which is up for negotiation.

2. Paul_f's post is factually accurate.

thesaint wrote:

Withholding rent does not afford such leeway, and the landlady can take the tenant to court and the tenant will then have to pay the rent and court costs,

No one is advocating withholding rent. What paul_f is saying and I am agreeing with is that given the landlord is in breach of contract and if negotiation fails it is OK for the tenant to deduct costs from the rent.

Now rach! came on here and in post 1 had this pretty much correct, that the landlord was in breach. That the repairs take some time in a world where it takes a while to get a corgi plumber out isn't the tenant's problem, again as paul_f says, so the tenant is entitled to compensation.

So in short paul_f's post is dead accurate. Here is the link again:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4478&postcount=3

How far the landlord should be pushed is another matter as it's clear from this thread that landlords do not on the whole understand the law and are not happy when the tenant applies it. Yet as rach! also said in post one, if it was the tenant beaching the contract then the landlord would enforce it so why a landlord should be so unreasonable if the tenant applies the law correctly is beyond me, always assuming it's done by polite negotiation.

thesaint wrote:

I hope my well meaning advice, coupled with my lack of experience has not offended you too much.

Hey don't worry about it, but it is worth taking note of paul_f's advice, as Pru says, he's quite influential in letting circles, maybe a look at his profile on landlordzone would help, after 30 years in the business he trains people in this kind of thing now and rubs shoulders with some of the the top legal bods in this field.

rach!_3

and once again thank you franklee, i am so glad someone actually was on my side and that i am right, we are going to write a letter tomorrow stating everything we can find and in the most polite way possible to try and get this sorted.

thesaint

You're right,

Good luck.