Oil tank filling in rental property

whalster

Much grumbling has gone on this weekend by a tenant who is moving out after 8 years with regards to filling of the oil centeral heating tank .At the time when they moved in we topped out the tank and have it in the contract that it is left the same on leaving.
The obvious problem being that then to fill the tank would have been less than half of what itis now at around £800 .
It is around 1/4 full now and I am sure these guys would fill it but being the only property we have on heating oil do you think or isit normal practice to only fill to a certain level marked on the tank ?
I have a £500 deposit and they would be getting this back as after such a length of time the house needs a good going through which will be put down as general wear and tear ,But with the price it is now it seems wise rather than have them fill it use the deposit for loss of oil and keep it at 1/4 full
Thanks

tim123456789

Don't understand your question.

T has contracted to fill the tank to the level that it was when he moved in (as is morally right). So that is what he is liable for. Not just contractually, but because that is the correct way for him to pay for the fuel he used.

It's completely irrelevant that:

a) this amount is more that LL had to put in to bring the tank to full the day that he moved into the property
b) fuel costs more than it did when he moved into the property

(Which ISTM is the arguments put forward above).

If his deposit doesn't cover the costs LL is entitled to sue for the difference (and will win - though that doesn't necessarily mean "will collect"!)

kingstreet

If the price had dropped, I don't suppose we'd see the tenant pleading to pay the difference he'd saved as filling the tank was cheaper than it originally cost the landlord.

If the agreement is to replace the fuel, the fuel should be replaced.

addyboy1982

If T is contracted to leave the tank at the level it was on move-in day then he is contracted to fill it.

Doesn't matter that it might now cost 2 or 3 times what it did 8 years ago - that's inflation!

Fire_Fox

You can't charge them out of the deposit then not fill the tank with oil, leaving it a quarter full, that is profiteering. You would need to submit receipts for anything you claim for to the court of deposit protection scheme.

G_M

So there was oil in the tank at the start of the tenancy? Who has used this oil? Oh yes.... the tenant! So clearly the tenant must pay for it.

In a gas upplied property, if they use gas, they pay for it. If theprice of gas rises during the tenancy, it costs them more.

The issue here is not the change in price, but whether you actually have a sined record (ie on the inventory) of howmuch oil was in the tank when they moved in! Can you prove it was full? Or 3/4 full or whatever?

If the tenants leave it 1/4 full and you attempt to charge them for the missing oil (whether via deposit deduction, or a cash demand, or via the courts) what will you say when they claim "but it was only 1/4 full when we moved in!"

InMyDreams

I don't think the OP is suggesting that the tenants want to get out of paying for the oil they have used.

He wants to know if it's OK for them to pay *him* for the oil they have used (at what price?) rather than just get it filled. But then not use that money (at least not straight away, maybe never) to put new oil in the tank.

G_M

InMyDreams wrote: »

I don't think the OP is suggesting that the tenants want to get out of paying for the oil they have used.

He wants to know if it's OK for them to pay *him* for the oil they have used (at what price?) rather than just get it filled. But then not use that money (at least not straight away, maybe never) to put new oil in the tank.

Ah! You may be right.

Clearly if the tenants do not wish to refill the tank to thelevel it was at when they moved in, then the LL & tenants can agree
a) how many litres would have been required to do so
b) what that would have cost them (eg ring 3 suppliers and ask for current price per litre and take average, or cheapest)

Then yes, tenant can pay LL, or LL & tenant may agree to use the deposit for this purpose.

LL can then choose either

a) to get tank refilled himself
b) to re-let the property with tank 1/4 full (and record this on the new tenant's inventory)
c) to sell the property (and charge the buyer for 1/4 tank of oil rather than full tank)
d) move into property himself and not use oil through the summer, but re-fill next autumn
e) or whatever..

tbs624

Clearly how you want to deal with this is up to you, but as the others have said, unless you agree otherwise T is bound by the terms of your contract to return the oil tank filled to the same level as at the start of the tenancy.

The cost differential across the intervening 8 year period is for the T to deal with. If they were reliant on gas or electic heating they would have had to meet the relevant increases over the years and this is no different.

whalster

Yes sorry for being a little oblique, I am going to not refund the deposit with agreement from the tenants ,I am still £100 down however they have been in a long long while .
My thrust basically was is it usual to fill the tank or usual to fill it to a point that will last incoming tenant a few weeks or so.
I had a tenant move out of a flat a few months ago owing utilities around £2000 ,fortunately not my problem however with heating oil as it is it seems foolish now to fill a tank as it could be used the tenant skip and the deposit not even cover the price of the oil never mind anything else that was wrong.
So I will leave it at a 1/4 full .I have been at this game a long while but had not thought how easily it would be to get caught out by this.

G_M

It is entirely upto how much oil you put in the tank at the start of a tenancy. The important thing is to record as accurately as possible on the inventory how much oil there is (and get the incoming tenant to sign) so that at the end of the tenancy you can balance the books.

If (as happens with oil!) the tenant leaves more oil in the tank, the LL should reimburse the value to the tenant. If less, the tenant pays for what's missing.

The initial joint recording is what matters.

(of course, leaving an empty tank is mad and will just result in the poor new tenant running out AND the boiler packing up and needing bleeding.)