Another disaster, oil leak in let house

G_M

maggiecon wrote: »

she is only topping up her oil and not getting a full fill.

In my other property that I let the tenant has actually disconnected the oil tank and has a small 5 gallon drum plumbed directly to the boiler!!

This is madness!

Weekly delivery?!!

Presumably the tank is permanently all-but empty so the boiler is being clogged up with sludge from the bottom of the tank as well as getting air-locks.

Tenant has disconnected the tank?

S21! S21!! S21!!!!!

martindow

Have you got anything in the tenancy agreement to deal with what happens if there is more or less oil in the tank at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning? It sounds as if this tenant started with an empty tank and is desperate not to leave oil when they leave. Emptying the tank will leave airlocks and possibly sludge from the bottom of the tank blocking the supply.

Has your other tenant rigged up some arrangement because of a fault with the tank or supply line? I can't imagine anyone sets up a five gallon tank unless there was a problem.

Perhaps you need to get these systems,their filters and tanks checked, cleaned or modified by someone reliable so that there are not future problems. And then give the tenants written instructions on how to operate the system and what to do if there is a problem.

leveller2911

G_M wrote: »

Send all bills to tenant.

Unlikely tenant will pay of course, in which case send tenant S21 Notice.

A tenant like this is not worth keeping....

Not a landlord are you?.........Any sign of a problem slap the tenant with a threat of a Section 21..

The question you should have asked is why is there a continual airlock in the system and thats not the problem/fault of the tenant.I would also point out that if the tank is "full of sludge at the bottom " then the OP should look into replacing the tank.

This is typical of many let properties with Landlords are more than happy to carry out maintenance on their primary residence but not the "business" property.I wager the OP would have had a new tank fitted on their home if the scenario was reversed.

anselld

leveller2911 wrote: »

Not a landlord are you?.........Thats it G_M any sign of a problem slap the tenant with a threat of a Section 21.. Shameful advice that.

The question you should have asked is why is there a continual airlock in the system and thats not the problem/fault of the tenant...If the tank wasn't empty (which it clearly wasn't) then theres a fault with the system ,clearly not the tenants problem.....

The implication is the the T is running at or near empty and only drip feeding the tank. That is the Ts choice and assuming the implications have been adequately explained to the T then it is the Ts fault if they ignore the advice.

leveller2911

anselld wrote: »

The implication is the the T is running at or near empty and only drip feeding the tank.

If the tank is in good order there is no reason why the tenant can't drip feed deliveries. Personally I can't see it making sense because of the cost of delivery. However thats not really the point here as the fact is that if the system is in good order it shouldn't get an air lock in.

That is the Ts choice and assuming the implications have been adequately explained to the T then it is the Ts fault if they ignore the advice.

Not if the system is not fit for purpose .......Just a hunch but if the property is in negative equity then it may well be a problem of a lack of maintenance.People don't want to spend money on a property worth less than the mortgage knowing that whatever they spend on it will more than likely be dead money.

G_M

leveller2911 wrote: »

Not a landlord are you?.........
Yes
Any sign of a problem slap the tenant with a threat of a Section 21..
No. But in this case, yes. Why would I deprive myself of rent by "slapping' tenants with S21 Notices without good reason?

The question you should have asked is why is there a continual airlock in the system and thats not the problem/fault of the tenant
If the tenant is running the tank down to empty, as evidenced by the need for weekly top-ups, that is the cause of the airlocks. That is not 'tenant-like behavior' with regards to an oil supply. (though I agree with the suggestion above about giving a tenant clear instruction on use of the boiler/tank. This should be included in the standard tenant pack)

.I would also point out that if the tank is "full of sludge at the bottom " then the OP should look into replacing the tank.
Any tank over the age of 3 or so years will have a small sludge residue. It is normal and harmless. provided the tank is not run dry.

This is typical of many let properties with Landlords are more than happy to carry out maintenance on their primary residence but not the "business" property.I wager the OP would have had a new tank fitted on their home if the scenario was reversed.

If the tank is in good order there is no reason why the tenant can't drip feed deliveries.

The combination of
* repeated airlocks and
* weekly drip feeding supply

indicates a 99% certainty that the tenant has an empty tank. If the tank were full or half full, he would not be paying for weekly deliveries (unless, and here's the 1%, he was a complete nut-head).

For comparison, I have one oil delivery each year (OK, yes a large tank).

If tenant wants to budget weekly, the only sensible way to do it is to set aside that money each month so it is somewhere safe (savings account, under the mattress) when the tank needs a proper top up.

edit: My own further advice to the OP, or any other landlord with an oil boiler/tank, would be to not only put instructions in the tenant pack/folder, but include a clause in the contract requiring the tenant not to allow the tank to run dry, and making them liable for any resulting call-out charges.

leveller2911

G_M wrote: »

The combination of
* repeated airlocks and
* weekly drip feeding supply

indicates a 99% certainty that the tenant has an empty tank. If the tank were full or half full, he would not be paying for weekly deliveries (unless, and here's the 1%, he was a complete nut-head).

For comparison, I have one oil delivery each year (OK, yes a large tank).

No it doesn't , the "weekly drip feeding" as you call it has happend once if you take account of the first delivery so its not a "weekly dripfeed". Most people will fill up roughly twice a year dependant on oil price.If its high they may well only fill a couple of hundred litres if they think the price may drop.

If tenant wants to budget weekly, the only sensible way to do it is to set aside that money each month so it is somewhere safe (savings account, under the mattress) when the tank needs a proper top up.

I don't disagree with you there,however if the tank was all but empty when the tenant moved it paying for 400 litres of oil in one go may not be affordable at the time.

edit: My own further advice to the OP, or any other landlord with an oil boiler/tank, would be to not only put instructions in the tenant pack/folder, but include a clause in the contract requiring the tenant not to allow the tank to run dry, and making them liable for any resulting call-out charges.

Again I don't disagree apart from the fact that the system should be in good working order which the OP's seems like it wasn't.

I thought you were a landlord, very quick to threaten the tenant with a section 21...No need for that given that neither you or I have the full details from the OP.

dodger1

leveller2911 wrote: »

Again I don't disagree apart from the fact that the system should be in good working order which the OP's seems like it wasn't.

I thought you were a landlord, very quick to threaten the tenant with a section 21...No need for that given that neither you or I have the full details from the OP.

But in this instance the tenant was told not to let the delivery driver bleed the system again and tenant ignored that instruction which caused more problems. If the system needed bleeding the tenant should inform the LL and give them the chance to fix the problem. I'm a tenant.

G_M

leveller2911 wrote: »

Again I don't disagree apart from the fact that the system should be in good working order which the OP's seems like it wasn't.

I thought you were a landlord, very quick to threaten the tenant with a section 21...No need for that given that neither you or I have the full details from the OP.

See post 9.

My advice to issue a S21 was
a) on the assumption that tenant did not respond to request for payment. Of course if the tenant pays the call out fee, no need for S21

b) The tenant is not only acting in an un-tenant-like manner, but is directly ignoring Landlord instructions with regard to repairs. That is the reason I would seek to replace with a more responsible tenant who would not cause damage and increased repair costs.

leveller2911

G_M wrote: »

See post 9.

My advice to issue a S21 was
a) on the assumption that tenant did not respond to request for payment. Of course if the tenant pays the call out fee, no need for S21

Quote from the OP:

" We warned her not to let him bleed it again or to let the system air lock".

The OP didn't send a heating engineer out to look for the source of the problem which they should have done. Any decent landlord should have looked into the problem that caused the air lock.

If the OP had properly investigated /cured the reason for the airlock they may well not have had any more trouble from the tenant.

I may be reading more into this but the house being in negative equity tells me the OP doesn't want to be a landlord with the associated responsibilities that are involved.

Without the facts all we are doing is giving an opinion but your very very quick to advise the OP to threaten the tenant which is a bit sad that you feel the need to.

I don't think we will agree on this G_M ..;)