New Tenancy - Causes for Concern

PensiveTenant

Hello

Myself and three friends signed last week on a four bedroom house, that we had all been impressed with at the viewing. At the time, there was clearly work still to be done, but the place had a lot going for it, including an incredible ice making fridge/freezer combo, refurbished kitchen and other white goods. We made sure that the white goods (and incredible ice-making machine) were going to be included, and were told they were.

We signed the tenancy agreement late last Saturday, and went to the property straight away. Despite being on the inventory (with pictures), and having been advised by the letting agent that they would be staying, the washing machine, Dishwasher, and fridge-freezer (with incredible ice-ma...) were all gone. Additionally, the inventory stated that nearly all the walls in the house were 'newly plastered and painted' despite being anything but.

The smoke alarms don't work, the back door does not open, a number of light fittings and plug sockets were not in place, and there are lots of damp markings around the house. There is also no drainage out the back of the property, creating something of a flooding hazard.

On Monday, the Landlord came over and announced that he was knocking the back wall of the house down, and for the next month, 'they' would be working on the place. 'They', were a series of contractors, who over the course of the day, arrived at the house, let themselves in (why wouldn't they have keys?!), and discussed the imminent works.

One of the group has to live in the property, however three of us are able to stay with friends, parents, previous properties. We complained to the letting agent, who over the next few days, failed to respond to our chasing, before eventually advising that the Landlord claimed he never suggested the wall would be knocked down, although he would be replacing the back door. In the last couple of days, some of the fittings have been replaced, sockets connected, but still no fire alarm, or functional back door. The damp situation is also still there.

Had the major kitchen reconstruction gone ahead, I'm fairly certain we'd have had cause for major-fuss-making, paying to move into a building site isn't really on. However, as that is not now going ahead, (and I now get to the point, thank you for your patience!), a) do we have any right to the missing white goods on the inventory?, b) seeing as we were supposed to move in last Saturday, and the place may still not actually be 'safe', after all that's happened, do we have any right to request rent date moved back to this weekend (or to a time when it is safe)? c) does having a person staying at the house through necessity, undermine our argument in respect of b)?

We were very much rushed into securing the house, and seeing how unfinished it really is, we are all aggrieved at the situation we find ourselves in.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Any assistance offered is greatly appreciated.

inmypocketnottheirs

It sounds as if you have an HMO, a house in multiple occupation. Have a look at this link http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/homeandcommunity/privaterenting/repairsandstandards/dg_189201 that may give some useful info.

poppysarah

Your council should have someone who deals with private sector housing.

Your local councillor will advise you what they can help you with.

gildius

Ugh, I've had bad experiences with landlords and letting agents too (not talking to me or each other...).

If you have in writing that the house will come with the white goods (and I assume that is what the inventory is for) then you should have them. However, if it's only the letting agent's word you have then you can bet the landlord won't want to give them back.

In the same way, if there's a person living there despite the fact it's unliveable, the LL will probably still want to charge rent.

I'm not an expert, but I've had similar experiences where landlords have done everything they could to get their money on a technicality. In one house I lived in the letting agent made loads of promises of work that would be done before we moved in - I got it put into the contract that we would have half rent until the work was done. We lived there and paid half rent for 8 months - dodging mould and water leaking into sockets - before everything was done! Maybe you could come to some sort of agreement like this with your letting agent?

I hope things get better for you!

CKhalvashi

poppysarah wrote: »

Your council should have someone who deals with private sector housing.

Your local councillor will advise you what they can help you with.

I am the above role with a housing speciality for our council.

Without seeing the property, there's not a lot that I can advise, however it is certainly an issue worth taking up with both Housing and Environmental Services as there could be several breaches here.

I have lived more/less on a building site for several weeks in 2007/8, and the difference was that we were renovating our own home. When there are tenancy agreements in place, it's a completely different ball game.

Ask the agency if there are members of a union body and write to the body in question. No smoke alarm is a definite no before we go any further.

The agency is an agent for the landlord, with various responsibilities. Make sure they're held to account!

I don't generally respond to PMs, but if you do wish to get hold of me, whilst I'd prefer it here, do feel free to message me.

CK

It_can_get_better

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

It sounds as if you have an HMO, a house in multiple occupation. Have a look at this link http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/homeandcommunity/privaterenting/repairsandstandards/dg_189201 that may give some useful info.

If it's a joint tenancy and they have exclusive possession of the whole property, it won't be a HMO.

PensiveTenant

Thanks all for taking the time to read and provide helpful responses. Much appreciated.

We had a meeting with the estate agents on Saturday, turns out the landlord is a friend of the manager there. We have since put our concerns in writing, and just today received a response back from the landlord dealing with some of our points (including 'it's not a legal requirement to have smoke alarms'), although many points are unanswered.

They have confirmed that they will be doing renovations to the back of the kitchen, which would surely render the place a building site for a month, and in my (no legal qualifications!) point of view, would mean the house isn't ready for tenancy.

I'm going to look into the legality of the fire safety situation, and possibly take it up with local housing/environmental services if necessary.

Thanks again for the assistance!

jjlandlord

It_can_get_better wrote: »

If it's a joint tenancy and they have exclusive possession of the whole property, it won't be a HMO.

I'm no expert, but I think none of the above prevents the property from being an HMO.

It_can_get_better

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm no expert, but I think none of the above prevents the property from being an HMO.

It's based on case law. The case was related to council tax liability, with the tenants claiming the property was a HMO so they weren't liable for the council tax. It was decided that as it was a joint tenancy they formed one household and so were liable to pay council tax.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1873.html&query=Goremsandu&method=all

As such the 'standard test' of what defines a HMO would fail. That definition comes from Housing act 2004 S254.2.f

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/254

jgh

PensiveTenant wrote: »

At the time, there was clearly work still to be done,

Arrrghhhhhh!!!! Noo!!!! See my thread. From your perspective: Never commit to moving into a place pending works being done. Only ever commit to moving into a place that is exactly as you view it.

jjlandlord

It_can_get_better wrote: »

It's based on case law. The case was related to council tax liability, with the tenants claiming the property was a HMO so they weren't liable for the council tax. It was decided that as it was a joint tenancy they formed one household and so were liable to pay council tax.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1873.html&query=Goremsandu&method=all

As such the 'standard test' of what defines a HMO would fail. That definition comes from Housing act 2004 S254.2.f

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/254

Thanks for the link to that case law.
It seems that the case law decision is based on the statute defining what is an HMO for council tax purpose, and concluded that a joint-tenancy for the whole of the property would fail the test (not defining households):

(b) is inhabited by a person who, or by two or more persons each of whom either-
(1) is a tenant of, or has a licence to occupy, part only of the dwelling; or
(2) has a licence to occupy, but is not liable (whether alone or jointly with other persons) to pay rent or a licence fee in respect of the dwelling as a whole.

But it does not seem to impact the definition of an HMO for the purpose of the Housing Act 2004, which does not contain such test.

So I'm thinking that this means that a property could be a HMO and not a HMO at the same time, depending on the purpose...