Tenant requesting discount: Boiler broken

Innys1

Guest101 wrote: »

Not to go off topic too much, but the tenants had every right to be there when there are strangers in their home. The LL had 5 visits i believe, so yes the tenants shouldve asked for a discount.

Why dont i meet you down the local pub and then come house sit for you whilst work is done, you know me as well as the tenants knew their landlord.

Some people are clearly biased against tenants, seeing them as 'lower class'

Yes, they have every right to be there. I don't agree though, that if they choose to be there, the landlord should have to pay for their lost earnings. It's just that, a CHOICE.

If your logic is correct, what's to stop a tenant exploiting it to the full? They could deliberately sabotage appliances, CHOOSE not to go to work when the repair men turned up and have the landlord pay their wages. They'd never have to go to work again.

Far fetched scenario? No more so than yours. A tenant soon gets to know whether their landlord can be trusted. If the landlord can't be trusted, they should move somewhere else, not remain their tenant wondering when they will next let themselves into the house.

Finally, why do you think I see tenants as "lower class"? Where did I say that?

Guest101

Innys1 wrote: »

Yes, they have every right to be there. I don't agree though, that if they choose to be there, the landlord should have to pay for their lost earnings. It's just that, a CHOICE.

If your logic is correct, what's to stop a tenant exploiting it to the full? They could deliberately sabotage appliances, CHOOSE not to go to work when the repair men turned up and have the landlord pay their wages. They'd never have to go to work again.

Far fetched scenario? No more so than yours. A tenant soon gets to know whether their landlord can be trusted. If the landlord can't be trusted, they should move somewhere else, not remain their tenant wondering when they will next let themselves into the house.

Finally, why do you think I see tenants as "lower class"? Where did I say that?

1: i didnt say you, i said some people.

2: then the LL should've asked them when it was convenient to come, and make arrangements around his tenant

3: how can you 'trust' your ll, they may meet once in the whole time they live there

4: i didnt say their wages, i said a discount, in the other threats i suggest £22 per day, as the standard utilities payment for missed appointents,

5: your example is very far fetched. Mine is an illustration of the typical relationship between tenant and landlord

paulwellerfan

OP just tell the tenants that your getting the boiler replaced.
end of story.
best of luck.

LifeasMe

Guest101 wrote: »

2: then the LL should've asked them when it was convenient to come, and make arrangements around his tenant

Thanks for taking the time to reply, it is appreciated.

That is the first thing I ask them. On one occasion, their 'convenient' time was 14 days from the date they informed me of the fault. I offered to sit in sooner than that, and they said no.

I have tried to respect their wishes at all times and always ask their preference each times.

Tenant refuses evening appointments as 'they want to relax'.

jbainbridge

Not sure I'd be trusting BG to replace the boiler though.

OP - sounds like you have other issues with the tenants. Next time you need to do it properly - full inventory, deposit and less personal items in the property for them to damage.

Guest101

LifeasMe wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply, it is appreciated.

That is the first thing I ask them. On one occasion, their 'convenient' time was 14 days from the date they informed me of the fault. I offered to sit in sooner than that, and they said no.

I have tried to respect their wishes at all times and always ask their preference each times.

Tenant refuses evening appointments as 'they want to relax'.

Sorry my comment was in relation to another post, i should've stayed on topic.

they sound quite unreasonable, im begining to have a change of opinion..

Innys1

Guest101 wrote: »

1: i didnt say you, i said some people.

2: then the LL should've asked them when it was convenient to come, and make arrangements around his tenant

3: how can you 'trust' your ll, they may meet once in the whole time they live there

4: i didnt say their wages, i said a discount, in the other threats i suggest £22 per day, as the standard utilities payment for missed appointents,

5: your example is very far fetched. Mine is an illustration of the typical relationship between tenant and landlord

We aren't going to agree on this one.

1) If you weren't referring to me, why did you include it the response to my post?

2) What's the relevant of what you have written here? As I recall, the landlord on that other thread was going to be at the property on every occasion a repair visit was due. If this is so, why should he then have to synchronise the visit with the tenant's availability as well?

I repeat, the tenant has CHOSEN to be in attendance. What if the tenant had said "I can only be available on a Sunday"? Is the landlord supposed to make himself and the repairman available only on a Sunday? Ludicrous.

3) Once? Do me a favour. It's only once if nothing ever goes wrong which is rare. I'm also including the rent being paid on the dot. That never, ever happens. There is communication every couple of months or so

4) If I were a tenant and had elected to be at home when repairs were necessary, I would not have expected the landlord to fund it - wages/discount it doesn't matter what you call it. If I were a landlord and a tenant asked for a wages/discount I'd refuse. If they chose to then leave, fine. Why would I want to keep a tenant like that?

5) As I said, it's no more far fetched than your fairy story. I don't think you have the first clue about the relationship between a tenant and landlord.

Better_Days

I think your issue is with BG. What does it say in the T&C of your service contract about repeated 'repairs'? Seven visits in 2 weeks to fix the same problem seems to me to be excessive. It may be better to 'escalate' this with BG to see if they can get to the bottom of the problem and sort out the boiler. Under the contract you have with BG do they have to replace the boiler for you - is this why they are not recommending replacement?

As a tenant who had repeated problems with the heating in March (when if you recall it was very cold) I do have sympathy with your tenants. In one week the engineers came out every day except Sunday (and frequently on other occasions either side of that week too)

They did a 'repair' in the loft that resulted in a water leak into the bedroom ceiling which smelt unpleasant while it was drying out. The unpredictability of not having reliable heating/water is frustrating and also having to rely on someone else to fix it.

I am not so sympathetic about the damage that they have done though. If they were otherwise good tenants I would advise a reduction in rent. In this case I think it is appropriate that you point out to them the costs you have incurred as a result of their damage and call it even.

In the long term it may be worth
1) Replacing the boiler
2) Replacing the tenants (not with family/friends/acquaintances)

Guest101

Innys1 wrote: »

We aren't going to agree on this one.

1) If you weren't referring to me, why did you include it the response to my post? - its an open forum, so advice to other people.

2) What's the relevant of what you have written here? As I recall, the landlord on that other thread was going to be at the property on every occasion a repair visit was due. If this is so, why should he then have to synchronise the visit with the tenant's availability as well? - If the Tenant doesnt trust the LL, then that is exactly what should happen, it is the tenants home.

I repeat, the tenant has CHOSEN to be in attendance. What if the tenant had said "I can only be available on a Sunday"? Is the landlord supposed to make himself and the repairman available only on a Sunday? Ludicrous. - The Tenant can deny access if they so choose, so compromise is the best way forward.

3) Once? Do me a favour. It's only once if nothing ever goes wrong which is rare. I'm also including the rent being paid on the dot. That never, ever happens. There is communication every couple of months or so - I think the vast majority of tenants pay their rent on time everytime time

4) If I were a tenant and had elected to be at home when repairs were necessary, I would not have expected the landlord to fund it - wages/discount it doesn't matter what you call it. If I were a landlord and a tenant asked for a wages/discount I'd refuse. If they chose to then leave, fine. Why would I want to keep a tenant like that? - Because for the sake of £100? you'll end up with a void period when the tenant refuses to allow viewings.

5) As I said, it's no more far fetched than your fairy story. I don't think you have the first clue about the relationship between a tenant and landlord. - I've been both, so i have more experience than most

Replies above in red

sleepymans

In my experience, boilers (of all kinds) can often be very unreliable.
If you have acted reasonably by arranging prompt repairs then I dont think the tenant is being reasonable in requesting rent discounts (especially as they seem to owe YOU money!)

I also think you need to listen to the engineers opinion as to whether to replace the boiler. It can often happen that brand NEW boilers need repairs far too ofen:eek:

Yes, you could fork out many hundreds of £s and still not have a completely trouble-free boiler for your tenants convenience.

To a certain degree in life generally we all have to "suck-up" some inconvenience, be we tenants or owner-occupiers. Just be reasonable.

I think if it were me I would buy a couple of electric space heaters to be available to the tenant in case of cold weather.

Lack of hot water is more difficult one, is there an electric shower in the premises? Is there an immersion heater available?
If there is alternative hot water and means of keeping the house warm then I consider that reasonable.

I would also give those tenants notice to vacate (in line with their agreement of course). They are not treating your property or you with reasonable respect.

And I agree with other posters, dont rent to acquantances, lovers, friends, colleagues or (worst of all family)