Distance between spindles in a rented property?

missrlr

jess-the-cat wrote: »

Having small children, upon moving in but before finding out the above, we said we would fit spindles ourselves. In the meantime we have fastened various planks of wood horizontally as a makeshift safety measure.

So you made a risk assessment and got permission for a remedial action to be taken that you were happy with and also to do but now don't want to carry through with that. Instead you have undertaken a different action but with a similar mitigation of risk but aesthetically damaging to the property without permission and one that could adverse impact on the property.

Why not TALK to your landlord and ask if they can undertake the replacement as you are concerned about the lack of spindles and don't want to undertake this and feel it is a hazard?

As a landlord I would be mighty naffed off with random bits of wood attached to perfect good spindles potentially damaging them and of course when re-letting come across be one more thing to rectify (out of your damage deposit), when a few spindles being replaced would have avoided that damage especially as that is what the landlord appears to have agreed to.

Clearly this was a matter discussed before, why not discuss it now? if you push and the LL is offended and gives you notice, well you will be back to hunting for a home and the LL will be back hunting for a tenant, neither option is one people really want to undertake. I am sure if they are reasonable then you can explain the concerns and that you feel this is in the LL best interests as insurance claims get messy and expensive.

Graham_Devon

GDB2222 wrote: »

But it isn't a risk, because you have the gaps boarded up.

Have a look at this linky http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/homeandcommunity/privaterenting/repairsandstandards/dg_189195

And here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/Privaterenting/Repairsandstandards/DG_189198

Stair spindle gaps over 100mm would probably be a cat 1 hazard, but the issue could easily be dealt with by boarding over the spindles, which of course you have done. If you removed the boards you have put up, your LL could just put something similar in place, and it would pass the test.

Slightly different question, but many landlords don't allow the use of bluetak and will start witholding the deposit for a simple scratch on the paintwork.

Surely encouraging the tenant to start boarding up the stairs would put them at risk of loosing their deposit?

Seems a little bizzare that the opinion seems to be to do it yourself, when I read so many threads about landlords witholding deposits for things far minor compared to what is being undertaken here. Even more bizzare is the simple answer of "OK, complain, and get yourself a Section 21 notice".

Kinda confirms everything I thought of many a landlord! Put up, shutup, or get evicted.

GDB2222

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Slightly different question, but many landlords don't allow the use of bluetak and will start witholding the deposit for a simple scratch on the paintwork.

Surely encouraging the tenant to start boarding up the stairs would put them at risk of loosing their deposit?

Seems a little bizzare that the opinion seems to be to do it yourself, when I read so many threads about landlords witholding deposits for things far minor compared to what is being undertaken here. Even more bizzare is the simple answer of "OK, complain, and get yourself a Section 21 notice".

Kinda confirms everything I thought of many a landlord! Put up, shutup, or get evicted.

This thread should surely be moved to the DIY forum. A very practical solution would be some thin plywood cut to size and held in place with cable ties round the remaining spindles. No damage to the property, removable in 5 minutes, and very little cost. For aesthetics, it can be painted before being put in place. As a LL, that's the sort of solution I would provide, if for some reason I did not want to mess around with adding spindles.

Graham_Devon

I guess I'm just having a rant more than anything. Just seems that all manner of service has gone out of the window.

For example, the stuff about "maybe the landlord didn't intend to rent to someone with kids". I just see this as a way out, as they DID rent to someone with kids, regardless of their intentions, and have to deal with that.

One of the ongoing things I see, not from all landlords, is the reliance on the S21 threat in relation to any questioning of a landlord. Again, I state, this isn't all landlords, probably a minority, but it does seem a little disheartening for the advice to a tenant worried about the safety of their kids should be "well if you do complain, expect to be evicted". It's certainly witnessed on this thread.

My sisters having trouble with her landlord at the moment and it's infruriating to the extreme. It's a simple problem, one that could be fixed in minutes, but she too has had the thread of eviction if she "hassles the landlord". I've got involved, and it looks like the only solution is to move out ASAP, as she's not getting anywhere with the agency.

Basically the oven doesn't work, and it's part of her rent. The hob works, so the agency are implying that she can still cook, and basically to shutup or find herself evicted. Whatever rights she has on her side are always trumped by the S21 threat....and it appears to have been the advice on here too.

GDB2222

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I guess I'm just having a rant more than anything. Just seems that all manner of service has gone out of the window.

For example, the stuff about "maybe the landlord didn't intend to rent to someone with kids". I just see this as a way out, as they DID rent to someone with kids, regardless of their intentions, and have to deal with that.

One of the ongoing things I see, not from all landlords, is the reliance on the S21 threat in relation to any questioning of a landlord. Again, I state, this isn't all landlords, probably a minority, but it does seem a little disheartening for the advice to a tenant worried about the safety of their kids should be "well if you do complain, expect to be evicted". It's certainly witnessed on this thread.

My sisters having trouble with her landlord at the moment and it's infruriating to the extreme. It's a simple problem, one that could be fixed in minutes, but she too has had the thread of eviction if she "hassles the landlord". I've got involved, and it looks like the only solution is to move out ASAP, as she's not getting anywhere with the agency.

Basically the oven doesn't work, and it's part of her rent. The hob works, so the agency are implying that she can still cook, and basically to shutup or find herself evicted. Whatever rights she has on her side are always trumped by the S21 threat....and it appears to have been the advice on here too.

The bit about your sister is wrong on so many grounds. I have sympathy, and I very much doubt that the LL will really want a new tenant. The agents may want some more commission ofc.

The electricity supply switch for ovens is often in a cupboard - sometimes very easy to switch it off accidentally. Worth checking.

"it does seem a little disheartening for the advice to a tenant worried about the safety of their kids should be "well if you do complain, expect to be evicted"" -- Yes and no. Yes, because safety is important. And no, because the OP knew exactly what she was renting, and now she wants something different.

Graham_Devon

GDB2222 wrote: »

The bit about your sister is wrong on so many grounds. I have sympathy, and I very much doubt that the LL will really want a new tenant. The agents may want some more commission ofc.

The electricity supply switch for ovens is often in a cupboard - sometimes very easy to switch it off accidentally. Worth checking.

"it does seem a little disheartening for the advice to a tenant worried about the safety of their kids should be "well if you do complain, expect to be evicted"" -- Yes and no. Yes, because safety is important. And no, because the OP knew exactly what she was renting, and now she wants something different.

It's not the switch, the fans come on but theres no heat. It's basically just a fan. We could of course fix it or replace it ourselves, but she's paying for a service where the oven is included. If we fix it and something goes wrong, were liable, and again, it could lead to an S21 AND loss of deposit. Every which way you go, the S21 appears and it puts you in a "hostage" type situation where you can't get it fixed, can't complain and can't fix it yourself. It's a trump card for lots of stuff it seems.

As for the OP knowing what they were renting, I'm not sure this would be the case. I'm not sure I would pick up on it on first viewing. Infact, it's not something I would honestly be thinking to check at all if I'm honest. I'd be checking the rooms, garden etc. Spindles would be the last thing on my mind until I saw my son near them. By that point, I'd expect the place I'm paying to live in to be up to safety standards.

I see it the same as walking into Tescos. I expect Tesco's to have the store up to health & safety standards. I don't say "oh, it was my fault for choosing to shop here". I hate compo and all that jazz, but if something is wrong, I do expect it to be put right if it's highlighted. I don't expect to be told as a customer "well, if you don't like it, get out".

GDB2222

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not the switch, the fans come on but theres no heat. It's basically just a fan.

As for the OP knowing what they were renting, I'm not sure this would be the case. I'm not sure I would pick up on it on first viewing. Infact, it's not something I would honestly be thinking to check at all if I'm honest. I'd be checking the rooms, garden etc. Spindles would be the last thing on my mind until I saw my son near them. By that point, I'd expect the place I'm paying to live in to be up to safety standards.

I see it the same as walking into Tescos. I expect Tesco's to have the store up to health & safety standards. I don't say "oh, it was my fault for choosing to shop here".

Sorry about the oven - grandma sucking eggs and all that.

I think the OP actually said that she was aware, but this is a long thread, so I may have mis-remembered.

As to Tescos, isn't it a bit like walking into the store, seeing it's on fire, and continuing to shop?

Graham_Devon

GDB2222 wrote: »

Sorry about the oven - grandma sucking eggs and all that.

I think the OP actually said that she was aware, but this is a long thread, so I may have mis-remembered.

As to Tescos, isn't it a bit like walking into the store, seeing it's on fire, and continuing to shop?

Hmm, not sure I'd go with the fire analogy! Bit extreme for my liking :P

More going into Tesco's, and finding the freezer door has a pane of glass ready to fall out, making the manager aware and being banned from the store. Or buying a product, finding it's faulty, and being told there is no refund and I'm now banned from the store.

I'm sure we could go through lots of other analogies though!

franklee

Graham_Devon wrote: »

One of the ongoing things I see, not from all landlords, is the reliance on the S21 threat in relation to any questioning of a landlord. Again, I state, this isn't all landlords, probably a minority, but it does seem a little disheartening for the advice to a tenant worried about the safety of their kids should be "well if you do complain, expect to be evicted". It's certainly witnessed on this thread.

I see your frustration but warning about the S21 is good advice as retaliatory evictions are so common. If you google retaliatory eviction you will find reams on the subject, here are a few links:

Housing Law – the bigger picture – eliminating retaliatory eviction
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/07/30/housing-law-the-bigger-picture-eliminating-retaliatory-eviction/

One million in poor rented housing ‘live with eviction fear’, says CAB
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20070613

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/1744i_ii/1744we13.htm

However there won't be any legislation changes any time soon if ever. The best a tenant can do against a S21 is cause some delay by making sure procedures have been followed but ultimately a landlord will get it right and be able to evict.

[Deleted User]

The reason I posted as I did about 'a few spindles' was because I moved into a council house with a stairway with no bannister and no spindles at all. I had a baby and was very worried about the safety of this. I became more worried when it turned out he was a 'climber' (anything and everything). The estate where I worked tended to employ 'odd job' type contractors to do repair jobs (badly). They had someone come round, who constructed a very wobbly bannister and a post half way up. It looked bad aesthetically but more importantly was very unsafe. No matter what I did (called up Decent Homes, the council, civic centre) etc, they just said that as the home had been built in the 70's it did not have to comply with current building regs. So I bought spindles, a bannister and did it myself (admittedly with gritted teeth). I did this because my child's safety was too important to not do it.

With a private rental its even less something I'd want to do because rents are so much higher and there's no guarantee u'll be there in a year's time (if I do do a repair I make darned sure I do a good job so the Landlord has no come back). But in that case, however desperate you are, if something is unsafe, u don't move in. However, I'm now a bit confused because in the first few posts on the thread u said it was actually aesthetic as the area where there were missing spindles had been partially boarded up and so it was aesthetically displeasing but safe????? So personally, as I said, I'd either put the odd missing spindle in or ignore it and move when the tenancy is up.

The oven is a different matter entirely. This does need to be reported and a repair insisted upon. As said, if there is a 1 year tenancy in place, and this insistence on a repair results in a S21 being issued and the tenant being threatened with eviction, the eviction can't happen until the tenancy term is up. And then can only happen if the LL goes to court and forces the eviction. So the tenant would have the remaining term of the tenancy and the 3 months or so it would take to turf them out to find another property. There is no certainty this would happen. I'd advise the tenant to try and speak to the LL personally, possibly the LA is being awkward. The LL may be the same, they may not.., u won't know til u try.

No its not fair, and its not right.., but I'm afraid it is the way it works. I've been in a similiar situation (with the difficulty finding a property because I have low or no earnings and LHA dependent) but until a change in the law happens (and I won't be holding my breath for that), its the way it is. You have to deal with it as it is or set up a group trying to change things or change your situation so u can get out. Its just made me more determined that I am going to get out of this situation. Its just a waste of energy to beat at the walls.