Landlord want to charge for smoke alarms - advice?

Fire_Fox

Oliviana_London wrote: »

The OP already said that he had with his pregnant wife a normal life. They cleaned as normal people. Nothing suggested that the house was not dusted for 3 years. That will be out of ordinary, and that would be what a reasonable person would not do.

I have no reasons to believe that the OP and his pregnant wife never cleaned and never dusted, do I?

I mean the LL should prove that the dust level was above what would be considered reasonable.... shouldn't he?

It is irrelevant how the tenant lived during the tenancy, they could have lived like pigs or she could have obsessive compulsive disorder. The claim is for the condition of the property including the smoke alarm at handover. The fact is all the smoke alarm needed was a clean, which the tenant could (and perhaps should) have done. It was not damaged, there were no signs of wear and tear, it did not need replacing.

There are arguments that can be used here, I don't think this is clear cut tenant liability. But fair wear and tear is a rubbish argument in this context and reasonable dust is absolutely ridiculous. You don't leave 'reasonable' dirt in an oven or refrigerator or toilet. You leave the place clean and everything in good working order, save anything you have formally reported broken during the tenancy.

Oliviana_London

Fire_Fox wrote: »

It is irrelevant how the tenant lived during the tenancy, they could have lived like pigs or she could have obsessive compulsive disorder. The claim is for the condition of the property including the smoke alarm at handover. The fact is all the smoke alarm needed was a clean, which the tenant could (and perhaps should) have done. It was not damaged, there were no signs of wear and tear, it did not need replacing.

There are arguments that can be used here, I don't think this is clear cut tenant liability. But fair wear and tear is a rubbish argument in this context and reasonable dust is absolutely ridiculous. You don't leave 'reasonable' dirt in an oven or refrigerator or toilet. You leave the place spotlessly clean and everything in good working order, save anything you have formally reported broken during the tenancy.

Since the dust was the cause why fire alarms broke, I disagree with you. To clean inside the fire alarms, you need to open them. The fire alarms are LL property, the tenant shouldn't interfere with them.

The LL should then prove that the tenant did something unreasonable, which a reasonable person would not do, action that terminated in breaking the fire alarms.

valeriej43

Smoke alarms are not expensive to replace, so why is the landlord claiming it cost £182 to clean them, ts the LL resposibility to check all fixtures like smoke alarms are working, and all smoke alarms go off at some time for little reason sometimes, i would expect that you should get your full bond back,
LL do try it on sometimes to get out of paying a bond or deposit back, it happened to my son, for a very petty reason, any excuse sometimes, a couple of new 10 year smoke alarms can be bought for £20,and work properly

paul1964_2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You don't leave 'reasonable' dirt in an oven ......

Going with the "oven" example, almost everyone with an electric oven will have a reasonable amount of dirt/dust inside the area housing the electrical workings of the oven. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to expect the tenant to take apart the oven to remove the dust without providing adequate safety instructions.

Same for a mains-wired smoke alarm system.

Fire_Fox

paul1964 wrote: »

Going with the "oven" example, almost everyone with an electric oven will have a reasonable amount of dirt/dust inside the area housing the electrical workings of the oven. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to expect the tenant to take apart the oven to remove the dust without providing adequate safety instructions.

Same for a mains-wired smoke alarm system.

I've just copied and pasted post 7 which addressed that! To me the problem lies with the failure occurring whilst the OP was moving and admits dust was being kicked up.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I'm not saying the smoke should necessarily ever have been serviced, but if they hadn't been touched for many years you could claim a slow build up of dust in an inaccessible place, say. It's widely recommended vacuum them every so often and use a dust cover when doing building work, perhaps anything dusty like moving. Not doing this they might argue you didn't behave 'in a tenant like manner'.

Oliviana_London

paul1964 wrote: »

Going with the "oven" example, almost everyone with an electric oven will have a reasonable amount of dirt/dust inside the area housing the electrical workings of the oven. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to expect the tenant to take apart the oven to remove the dust without providing adequate safety instructions.

Same for a mains-wired smoke alarm system.

Totally agree with you regarding the oven.

I think that the OP should keep this simple, and not speculate too much. The LL must prove that the tenant did something unreasonable that increased the level of dust to an unreasonable level, level that damaged the fire alarms.

And I doubt it, since his wife was pregnant... an unreasonable level of dust would affect a pregnant woman i would say.

I also think that the OP might think that maybe he did something unreasonable, but I am sure he didn't. I am also 100% sure that he lived in normal reasonable way and any other reasonable tenant would have had the same problem with the fire alarms and dust.

Also I think that when moving, the dust level still can't go above a normal one. Not to cause a damage to a property. Otherwise, how can the tenants move out without creating some extra dust? They can't. No one can move from a property without creating some extra dust. Can they?

paul1964_2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I've just copied and pasted post 7 which addressed that! To me the problem lies with the failure occurring whilst the OP was moving and admits dust was being kicked up.

The C&P post addresses nothing. The "cleaning" part of your post describes how to give a smoke detector a quick clean, but if the LL wanted the OP to do this, he should have provided this procedure in the tenancy agreement. The OP can't just take it upon himself to maintain the LL's electrical equipment - some detectors require internal cleaning that should only be performed by a qualified person.

As for using a cover to block an in-service smoke detector on moving day - I don't agree with this advice. I can understand a builder covering a detector when performing extremely dusty work, but not a householder moving furniture around.

Fire_Fox

paul1964 wrote: »

The C&P post addresses nothing. The "cleaning" part of your post describes how to give a smoke detector a quick clean, but if the LL wanted the OP to do this, he should have provided this procedure in the tenancy agreement. The OP can't just take it upon himself to maintain the LL's electrical equipment - some detectors require internal cleaning that should only be performed by a qualified person.

As for using a cover to block an in-service smoke detector on moving day - I don't agree with this advice. I can understand a builder covering a detector when performing extremely dusty work, but not a householder moving furniture around.

For the fourth time "if they hadn't been touched for many years you could claim a slow build up of dust in an inaccessible place, say."

The AST is not an agreement intended to cover every eventuality, not all aspects of behaving in a tenant like manner are covered.

paul1964_2

Oliviana_London wrote: »

Also I think that when moving, the dust level still can't go above a normal one. Not to cause a damage to a property. Otherwise, how can the tenants move out without creating some extra dust? They can't. No one can move from a property without creating some extra dust. Can they?

I agree. The moving of furniture may cause a small rise in airborne dust, but as you say, still within a normal range.

A normal amount of airborne dust can cause a build up in a detector over time, which can make it too sensitive. Cleaning the sensor can fix this, but the tenant can't be expected to take this upon himself. Some detectors automatically compensate for dust build up and have to be reset after cleaning - the tenant can't be expected to maintain electrical equipment without the correct instructions.

The OP has done nothing wrong and should not have a deposit deduction for this.

propertyman

paul1964 wrote: »

Going with the "oven" example, almost everyone with an electric oven will have a reasonable amount of dirt/dust inside the area housing the electrical workings of the oven. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to expect the tenant to take apart the oven to remove the dust without providing adequate safety instructions.

Same for a mains-wired smoke alarm system.

Well no Paul nothing should get outside the internal oven casing except via the door. Otherwise it's a very dangerous oven