LL legal obligations on repairs

sharpee

dimbo61 wrote: »

So you want to keep nice tenants !
Why not fit an electric shower above the bath then the tenants can at least have a wash in warm water.

Slightly complicated as my house in on an estate that has district heating (i.e. hot water for heating and taps etc delivered to the property) and hence not suitable for an electric shower.

Anyway it turns out its not the shower as there is NO HOT WATER to any of the taps as well.

Plumber was totally useless, so we're going to go over at the weekend to have a look ourselves.

Ofcourse this all happend when we're contemplating selling the house

propertyman

jjlandlord wrote: »

Well, s.11 says that shower should be repaired (imo as above). What authoritative reference says that this obligation can "discharged"? (that's what we're after here and I'm interested as well in having the actual legal position!)

If there is no statutory obligation to repair then, as I understand it, by common law a contractual obligation would arise only if explicit in the contract.

Well with reference to my post you have restated that there is, assuming there is one, a contractual responsibility- "repair as let".

As to S11 it creates an obligation, not set a standard or scope, only stating that (3)In determining the standard of repair required by the lessor’s repairing covenant, regard shall be had to the age, character and prospective life of the dwelling-house and the locality in which it is situated.
In the absence of a contractual responsibility and an unwillingness to argue the point in the court to establish terms, the landlord at worst has to meeet the minimum standard of the Housing Act 2004, in this case, a bath. The tenant might argue that the property is such that it warrants a shower , but the cost of proceeding would buy several electric showers !

I cannot point you to particular case as this principle has grown out of several hundreds of years of law operating most of that time as case law, and in the context of the old 59 Housing Act, the 85 Act and the tenancy agreement in each case ( or absence of one),

jjlandlord

Thanks for these details.

propertyman wrote: »

only stating that (3)In determining the standard of repair required by the lessor’s repairing covenant, regard shall be had to the age, character and prospective life of the dwelling-house and the locality in which it is situated.

Good point. But that should indeed be argued based on specific cases.

propertyman wrote: »

In the absence of a contractual responsibility and an unwillingness to argue the point in the court to establish terms, the landlord at worst has to meeet the minimum standard of the Housing Act 2004, in this case, a bath.

I disagree on this, though.
That fact that HA 2004 has provision for minimal requirements (are they only for HMOs, or all properties, btw?) has imo no impact on the repair obligations from s.11 of LTA 1985.

sharpee

Thanks for all your replies.

I personally thought there was an obligation to repair, but my incompetent LA said no.

I always intended to fix the shower and had arranged for the repair to be done within 48 hours of me being made aware of the problem.

But it now turns out it wasn't the shower but all the hot water. The LA Plumber hasn't got a clue, didn't even notice the property didn't have a boiler, didn't knwo what the cold water tank fed (!!!) and just assumed it was the shower pump.

We've now talked directly to the tenants and it turns out that this problem has been going on for a while, they reported the problem several times to the LA and nothing was done until they put in a complaint the the Manager of the LA!!!

We're going to visit the property tomorrow with another plumber to try and sort the problem out. We will also be putting in a formal complaint to the LA about this, its not the first problem we've had with them, and will be looking to maybe managing the property ourselves because at the moment I can't see what I am paying the LA for.:mad:

Thanks for all you help

propertyman

jjlandlord wrote: »

I disagree on this, though.
That fact that HA 2004 has provision for minimal requirements (are they only for HMOs, or all properties, btw?) has imo no impact on the repair obligations from s.11 of LTA 1985.

it applies to all domestic premises. I am not sure that you are clear on the "impact "reference so I will as requested take you through it.

There is no, and never has been, any implied obligation for premises to be in repair, they are let as is and it is for the parties to agree the obligations for and standards of repair. Or not.*

Parliament has however exerted some control over that, currently,
a: setting an obligation to repair under section 11*
b: setting a minimum standard 2004 Act HRsetc thingy

So that in the event of a dispute the burden of the obligation is clear, but the scope and extent are, beyond a general description, left to section 11 3 and argument, the express and implied terms of the contract, as well as the intention of the parties.

And as a floor through which none of the above should fall lurks the 2004 Act providing a minimum for habitation.

It is difficult to make a clear example of an in shower and bath so take for example a common social housing covenant for kitchens. Even if let with a fully fitted kitchens sans appliances of course, some fail to understand that if this falls into disrepair, their only obligation is to maintain a sink and one workspace. Cupboards can fall of the walls and they will not replace them.

This equally applies to private lettings, however the penalties to a landlord is a lost tenant, and a lower rent on review, especially if it is not upward only, thereby righting itself, with the exception of certain landlords and some market sectors.

*LTA 1985 also prevents most lettings making tenancies internal repairing ( for the tenant) if less than 7 years, and overriding any terms that say to the contrary.

propertyman

sharpee wrote: »

I personally thought there was an obligation to repair, but my incompetent LA said no.

Well done you

Your agent is right but it's a very poor answer and only worsens matters as I explain above.

I think you need to formally meet an review all the invoices for any work and review what was done, as well as the information they were provided with.

LA's often are salespeople and let the let manage people go as an expensive overhead so they do not have the mindset or knowledge.

If so then I suggest they come to a deal and part ways.