AST Tenancy Agreement

gotnogreen

Hello all. I was hoping to get some advice on a tenancy agreement I am due to sign with a friend on June 1st for a two bed flat furnished flat.

The agent dealing with the flat called today and mentioned something strange...she breezily mentioned that the landlord will not be responsible for the repair or replacement of the washing machine/fridge freezer and dishwasher - he will only be responsible for "fixed" items such as the boiler/heating systems and built in oven and that this was all outlined in their tenancy agreement.

Seems stange that something so important is "suddenly" mentioned. I asked if this was a particular item on the contract that the landlord had requested or was this normal for a furnished let contract and she said it was part of their standard ASTs that their solicitor draws up. I then asked if it was their standard AST why she felt the need to suddenly tell me about this part of the contract. Anyway, she couldn't answer that question.

Is this legal?..I mean we're hardly going to repair or replace the landlords electrical items unless we broke them negligently of course. But if these items go on the blink for whatever reason then it can't be legal that we would have to repair or replace surely?

I read the "standard" AST she e-mailed me and I'm guessing she's referring to this section:

4.4.7 "Have the use of all appliances and/or furnishings and/or household goods provided in the Property, as listed in the inventory save those which are noted as not working. However, should any items require repair, or be beyond repair, the Landlord does not undertake to pay for any costs of repair or to replace the appliance, and/or furnishings and/or household goods except those which the Landlord is required by law to maintain"


Any advice gratefully received...many thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

gotnogreen

G_M

Yes it is legal. But of course you could insist on this clause being removed.

Under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 section 11

11 Repairing obligations in short leases.
(1)In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor—
(a)to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes),
(b)to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity), and
(c)to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.

rentergirl

Here's what I think happened: either the appliances were left behind by another tenant and the landlord is happy to have them there but won't replace/pay for upkeep, or they have been breaking down a lot. Nowadays it is perfectly usual for white goods to be provided even in so-called unfurnished places. The agents have ambushed you with this, probably because they forgot. Keep in mind that ALL agents are inept and mendacious, ambush them by insisting the clause is removed. All agreements must be transparent, and to act as they have is, to use a non-legal term, dodgy.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

Yes it is legal. But of course you could insist on this clause being removed.

The problem is that because this clause states the default position, removing it won't change anything (apart perhaps re. replacement, not sure about that)
The advantage of the clause is that it makes things clear.

Benji

jjlandlord wrote: »

The problem is that because this clause states the default position, removing it won't change anything (apart perhaps re. replacement, not sure about that)
The advantage of the clause is that it makes things clear.

I agree, without the clause the landlord would not be liable anyway - at least this way no one can accuse the landlord/agency of implying anything different.

dodger1

rentergirl wrote: »

Keep in mind that ALL agents are inept and mendacious

As usual from you absolute garbage.

girl_withno_name

gotnogreen wrote: »

I mean we're hardly going to repair or replace the landlords electrical items unless we broke them negligently of course.

Could you replace them, but take them with you at the end of the tenancy? You may need white goods at your next place; for example, if you rent unfurnished or buy somewhere.

princeofpounds

It's perfectly allowable for the landlord to take such a decision, but it's up to you whether it's a deal-breaker or not.

Under housing law the landlord doesn't have an obligation to repair white goods.

Some observers will tell you that means the landlord doesn't have ANY obligation to repair white goods.

I think that is incorrect because contract law has something to say on the matter even if housing law does not. There is an implied contract to ensure working white goods if they are supplied at the start of the tenancy as part of the rental package UNLESS the landlord specifically contracts out of repairing them. Which is what they are trying to do, an regardless of whether my opinion on this is right or not (and the debate swirls here periodically) it is something that is legitimate for them to do.

At any rate, the clause is not a dishonest one, even if it is a bit tight.

tbs624

Ask that the clause is amended to add that the T shall not repair or replace the LLs white goods, except where failure or damage can be proven to be due the Ts acts or omissions
( and fair wear and tear should be accounted for ) and that LL agrees to remove non-working items so that T may install his/her own and these shall remain the property of the T to be taken with the T at tenancy end

tbs624

rentergirl wrote: »

Here's what I think happened: either the appliances were left behind by another tenant and the landlord is happy to have them there but won't replace/pay for upkeep, or they have been breaking down a lot.

It's more likely to simply be that the LL wishes to avoid bills for repair/replacment - there doesn't have to be a back story.

rentergirl wrote: »

Nowadays it is perfectly usual for white goods to be provided even in so-called unfurnished places.

..and the LL in this case *is* providing them but is opting out of repair/replacement

rentergirl wrote: »

The agents have ambushed you with this, probably because they forgot.

Such high drama Ts should always ask for a copy of the tenancy agreement before getting too excited about a rental property. They should then obviously trawl through each [edit: clause] and seek independent advice on anything about whch they may be unsure.

rentergirl wrote: »

Keep in mind that ALL agents are inept and mendacious, ambush them by insisting the clause is removed. All agreements must be transparent, and to act as they have is, to use a non-legal term, dodgy.

As evidenced by many of my own posts I have little time for LAs who can't do their job but tarring all LAs as rentergirl does is clearly daft.

I'd say it was pretty transparent that the LA took the time to highlight this particular clause, presumably so as to avoid any misunderstandings between LL& T further down the line

jjlandlord

Princeofpounds, what was stated by Benji and myself is based on common law, and I believe that there is no such thing as an "implied contract" to repair (references to opinion of legally trained individuals were provided as part of previous such discussion).

You have claimed that there is such an "implied contract" many times, but failed to provide any reference.
For everyone's benefit, have you got any reference to back this claim?

Also, note that if white goods are provided, there is a difference between having an obligation to provide working appliance and having an obligation to repair them thereafter.