LL and EA delay and refuse repairs

honeybean

Kynthia wrote: »

I'm assuming that's what the OP is already using, either one that produces a spark or a small flame and is designed for that purpose, as I'd hate to think the EA was handing them a cigarette lighter to use.

Reading the original post he just says the landlord gave him a lighter maybe I read it wrong.:D

mahoney1975

mrginge wrote: »

Yes that's great thanks.

If all you want to do is restate your position i don't really know what else you're after.

erm, excuse me, what are you so worked up about? A landlord perhaps?

mahoney1975

jjlandlord wrote: »

Contract is pretty clear indeed. If landlord didn't want to be bound by that clause he shouldn't have included it in the first place!

A word of reason. The post was just to examine if I am right in principle, although I was steaming out when I wrote it.

I cannot understand why every time a landlord has to meet their obligations they immediately flag tenants as a problem and threaten with eviction, simply because they are cheapskates.

How would the same argument work if the LL could prove that I damaged the ignition by misusing the appliance and at the end of the tenancy I proposed to hand them a lighter to resolve the problem? Surely they would dispute my deposit and claim the full repair cost!

mahoney1975

Kynthia wrote: »

I'm assuming that's what the OP is already using, either one that produces a spark or a small flame and is designed for that purpose, as I'd hate to think the EA was handing them a cigarette lighter to use.

just to clarify , I am indeed using a stick lighter.

AdrianC

mahoney1975 wrote: »

just to clarify , I am indeed using a stick lighter.

I really can't agree with the people who seem to find that a safety issue, tbh. If somebody's not safe to be let loose with a lighter, they're not safe to be let loose with a gas hob...

Is there an inconvenience issue? Yes.
Is it the end of the world? No.

Does it affect the genuine situation with regard to the other - serious - issues you've experienced? No. If anything, it muddies the waters and makes you look like a nit-picker.

mahoney1975

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

The OP hasn't said whether they are still within their fixed-term. But that doesn't preclude them being able to draw a S21 up in readiness.

I fully sympathise with tenants who have landlords unwilling to carry out necessary repairs but I don't think this particular one is utterly necessary

I am not suggesting that I have lost my sleep over this. There are far more underlying problems with this landlord and this is just one more. I only wanted to know in principle if they can claim such rubbish.

I believe that since the flat was advertised with this appliance and the contract is clear about the fixtures, their argument is rubbish. As I mentioned above, if we were to revert the argument the LL would certainly have me pay for the entire appliance to be repaired. Why would that be ok and not me asking them to fix it.

Is it worth being evicted for a clicker? No, but in my case I'd rather move on from a cheapskate and potentially dangerous landlord.

mahoney1975

AdrianC wrote: »

I really can't agree with the people who seem to find that a safety issue, tbh. If somebody's not safe to be let loose with a lighter, they're not safe to be let loose with a gas hob...

Is there an inconvenience issue? Yes.
Is it the end of the world? No.

Does it affect the genuine situation with regard to the other - serious - issues you've experienced? No. If anything, it muddies the waters and makes you look like a nit-picker.

Just to be clear, I have not written anywhere that the lighter is a safety issue. The conversation is not about safety but about contractual obligations.

Kynthia

mahoney1975 wrote: »

Just to be clear, I have not written anywhere that the lighter is a safety issue. The conversation is not about safety but about contractual obligations.

Contractually you have not suffered a loss. You still have a safe hob that you can use to cook on. I believe it would be difficult to argue that the purpose built igniter you have been supplied is not a suitable replacement for the ignition button.

You would receive great advice from the people on this forum if the landlord was refusing to fix the broken boiler or unsafe stairs. The problem is the majority don't feel the ignition button is sufficient an issue.

mrginge

mahoney1975 wrote: »

erm, excuse me, what are you so worked up about? A landlord perhaps?

I'm sorry, what does that mean? Are you insinuating that because i disagree with your opinion i am automatically some evil landlord?
I notice that you don't make the same accusation of 'jjlandlord', who just happens to be more sympathetic to you.

Well i'm sorry to shatter the illusion me old mate, but i'm not, nor ever have been a landlord.

Your question is about contractual obligations. In my opinion the landlord has fulfilled his obligations by providing you with a working and suitable alternative device. He does not have to replace like for like. If you would prefer a more expert opinion i suggest a trip to a lawyer rather than a public forum.

SerialRenter

mahoney1975 wrote: »

How would the same argument work if the LL could prove that I damaged the ignition by misusing the appliance and at the end of the tenancy I proposed to hand them a lighter to resolve the problem? Surely they would dispute my deposit and claim the full repair cost!

Think I'll try that one at the end of my tenancy and see how it goes down xD

LL: "Walls are scuffed and need painting."
me: "Here's a paint brush, you now have the means to re-paint the walls, can I have my full deposit back now please?"