We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Landlord want to charge for smoke alarms - advice?
Options
Comments
-
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.
Thanks for repeating this again. All I can do is repeat that it is my opinion that this is irrelevant, as the tenant is under no obligation to clean/service the inaccessible parts of the LL's electrical equipment.
Again, it is purely my opinion, but I don't think that ignoring dust internal to a LL's electrical equipment means that the OP has behaved in a manner that is not "tenant like". Therefore if the LL wishes the T to perform such maintenance, perhaps he should have made this known to the T.
Sorry for repeating myself - I will stop now.0 -
propertyman wrote: »Well no Paul nothing should get outside the internal oven casing except via the door. Otherwise it's a very dangerous oven
OK. All I meant was that dust tends to get inside electrical appliances through vents, etc.
Some of the things coming out of my oven could be considered quite dangerous.0 -
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.
So 2 things should be hold by the OP:
1. He was not required by the tenancy agreement, nor a formal request was made to him by the agency, to do the maintenance of the fire alarms. Nor he has the knowledge and training to do so (nor he wanted his pregnant wife to electrocute herself when trying to clean the fire alarms which are electric based
) Anyway, there is no law saying that the tenants must do the maintenance of the electrical parts of the property, by the contrary that is the LL responsibility.
2. No unreasonable level of dust was created during his stay in the property. Therefore he did not increase the dust level above the rates expected to be found in a house where people are living. So the fire alarms broke due to the time ware, not because of something he had done, and it is the agency/LL responsibility to deal with the disrepairs of the property caused by the time, quality and fair usage. You can't stop dust going in the most strange places, you can only reduce it if the property if extremely well isolated... and you don't like fresh air that much
Agree?Some language constructions that might seam odd are to be ignored since English is not my first language, so surely I make mistakes. Any confusions, ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.0 -
Thanks for repeating this again. All I can do is repeat that it is my opinion that this is irrelevant, as the tenant is under no obligation to clean/service the inaccessible parts of the LL's electrical equipment.
Again, it is purely my opinion, but I don't think that ignoring dust internal to a LL's electrical equipment means that the OP has behaved in a manner that is not "tenant like". Therefore if the LL wishes the T to perform such maintenance, perhaps he should have made this known to the T.
Sorry for repeating myself - I will stop now.
You are completely misinterpreting!! Post 7 was clearly directed at the OP (I quote them AND used the word you) ie. saying that the tenant could claim a slow build up of dust in an inaccessible place not the landlord! I have only ever suggested the tenant could be deemed responsible for cleaning accessible parts of the smoke alarm as per the fire services recommendations not taking the thing apart. Reread my posts! Declutterbug-in-progress.⭐️⭐️⭐️ ⭐️⭐️0 -
I am going the wade in here as this is silly, and that the answer was given a while ago.
The landlord will have to show that they can establish the condition of the detectors at check in- chances are it was an external visual check alone, or a service visit(s) before or during the tenancy.
Unless through the periodic inspections or at check out the landlord can show that the tenants shed skin like snakes, with eczema, and the only Mr Sheen they have heard of used to be in two and a half men, he is hard pressed to prove that the dust does not pre-date their occupation.
That it is there seems beyond doubt, but how it got there and when, is a matter for the landlord to prove, not the tenant to disprove.Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn0 -
Oliviana_London wrote: »1. He was not required by the tenancy agreement, nor a formal request was made to him by the agency, to do the maintenance of the fire alarms.
As a mains hard wired system, even if it did/or was asked, in a tenancy under 7 years, it would be unenforceable as a tenants repair.Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn0 -
propertyman wrote: »As a mains hard wired system, even if it did/or was asked, in a tenancy under 7 years, it would be unenforceable as a tenants repair.
Good, so we establish that there was no legal obligation for the OP to do the maintenance of the fire alarms.
Therefore you can't hold liable a person for something that he is not legally required to do (in this case cleaning the fire alarms). Only if he did something else, that indirectly caused the fire alarms to break by increasing the dust that was found to have broken them (and this must be proven by the LL of course).Some language constructions that might seam odd are to be ignored since English is not my first language, so surely I make mistakes. Any confusions, ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.0 -
They cannot be required to service or clean them, however could be liable for acts of waste.
That would mean living in such a way as to give rise to huge amounts of dust, and/or failing to clean or take steps to prevent that happening which then contaminates the detector.
That must however be beyond what is normal, and what would be expected had the landlord, aware of the need to service/clean them on a regular basis as
a; it is not nor cannot be the tenants responsibility
b: will inevitably get dusty
c: need to be serviced to resolve b and ensure they work.Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn0 -
propertyman wrote: »They cannot be required to service or clean them, however could be liable for acts of waste.
That would mean living in such a way as to give rise to huge amounts of dust, and/or failing to clean or take steps to prevent that happening which then contaminates the detector.
That must however be beyond what is normal, and what would be expected had the landlord, aware of the need to service/clean them on a regular basis as
a; it is not nor cannot be the tenants responsibility
b: will inevitably get dusty
c: need to be serviced to resolve b and ensure they work.
If only I could use English language with such clarity... Some language constructions that might seam odd are to be ignored since English is not my first language, so surely I make mistakes. Any confusions, ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.0 -
Oliviana_London wrote: »If only I could use English language with such clarity...
Read and learn; read and learn!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards