We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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.
📨 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!
LL responsible for phone line/ aerial?
Comments
-
What I actually said was (highlight added):What, like this bit?
The law around implict contractual terms is by definition uncertain and complicated. Neither side can say definitively "the phone line was/was not included in the contract". They can only claim it was/wasn't, and then hope the other agrees. And if the other side does not agree, then a court would have to decide taking into account all the relevant specific facts.There may be a contractual obligation though. Either
a) .....
b) implicit, if the presence of those items, or anything the LL said, led the tenant to believe they worked & were part of the contract
It is for this reason it is always better to have explicit contractual terms agreed in a written contract, than rely on implicit terms which are open to interpretation.0 -
What I actually said was (highlight added):
My apologies for incompletely quoting you - the point I was trying to make is that it is possible to create a repairing obligation that isn't explicit (after thesaint claimed it was not).Please show me where the above appears in the link to Sec 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
It doesn't have to in order to be binding. Plenty of LL and T are bound by contract terms that do not appear in the governing statutes.
Does the LL have a statutory responsibility to repair?
No
Does the LL have a contractual responsibility to repair?
Maybe, we cannot say either way
Morally, should the LL repair?
Opinion varies but it looks like most consider that a good LL would0 -
Does the LL have a contractual responsibility to repair?
Maybe, we cannot say either way
Nothing the landlord has written leads me to believe there is a contractual reponsibility.
The landlord has stated in no uncertain terms that the property was not advertised with these services, so I think the balance of probabilities leads it to the conclusion that they the landlord has not included them in his repairing obligations in the tenancy agreement.
If he had, then I don't think he/she would be posting on this forum.Well life is harsh, hug me don't reject me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards