LL and EA delay and refuse repairs

Hermoine

Can you confirm whether you actually have a gas safety certificate despite the hob not working properly - your first post doesn't make it clear. I only ask because when I was selling my flat to someone who planning to let it out, providing a gas safety certificate was part of the deal, and the person I got in to do it wouldn't pass my hob because one burner wouldn't ignite automatically, and when it was lit with a match didn't ignite the whole way round. If your flat doesn't have a gas safety certificate because of the state of the hob, then you have a much stronger case to get the landlord to replace it.

mahoney1975

mrginge wrote: »

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.

Or you simply don't have to reply and move on to another thread instead of bashing the poster because you disagree.

again:
"To keep in repair and proper working order all ... electrical items belonging to the Landlord and forming part of the Fixtures..."

Yes you are right, he does not have to replace like for like, he can buy a cheaper, working hob.

The hob is not in "proper" working order under the manufacturer's description and the contract the landlord proposed and signed. It is that simple, whether a minor or major thing to you or anyone else, it is not in "proper working order". A lighter is a temporary solution, not a long term fix, the appliance is faulty albeit safe.

You think I'm being unreasonable, but try to tell your LL that you will offer them a lighter when your new electrical equipment short circuited and messed up the sparky in their 400 pound hob.

If I accept this as a "suitable alternative", then next time they will refuse repairs for every single appliance.

AdrianC

Hermoine wrote: »

...providing a gas safety certificate was part of the deal, and the person I got in to do it wouldn't pass my hob because one burner wouldn't ignite automatically, and when it was lit with a match didn't ignite the whole way round.

I suspect the relevant issue there wasn't the mode of ignition, but the failure of one burner to burn properly.

mahoney1975 wrote: »

"To keep in repair and proper working order all ... electrical items belonging to the Landlord and forming part of the Fixtures..."
The hob is not in "proper" working order under the manufacturer's description and the contract the landlord proposed and signed. It is that simple, whether a minor or major thing to you or anyone else, it is not in "proper working order".

In terms of the primary operation of the hob, it is. What is not in "proper working order" is a small side feature.

A lighter is a temporary solution, not a long term fix, the appliance is faulty albeit safe.

The logical extension of that argument would be that a single failed light bulb, no matter how insignificant and costly, would be grounds for complaint and repair/replacement of an item.

If I accept this as a "suitable alternative", then next time they will refuse repairs for every single appliance.

Play each case on the individual merits.

Can I suggest a decent rule of thumb to apply?
If you owned the property, would YOU dip YOUR hand into YOUR own pocket to fix/replace the appliance because of the issue?

BitterAndTwisted

OP: this is a trivial matter and you appear to enjoy tilting at windmills. So, tilt away to your heart's content! Not that it's going to get you anywhere as the consensus appears that you are in a minority of one. This really should be telling you something if only you are willing to listen.

Save your righteous indignation for issues of disrepair which deserve your attention. This one does not.

m0t

I think some of the posters in this thread are being a little bit harsh on the op.

If I were paying top whack for a modern flat and the cooker broke I would want the landlord to fix it, and would feel agrieved if they provided a bodge. The standard at which I expect a landlord to operate is higher than what I would accept if I were in my own home and it was my cooker that had broken.

Having previously lit hobs with matches/lighters I have found it quite difficult to safely light all at once, especially if there are already pots and pans on the go. Its also probably not such a good idea if you are a bit older and don't have steady hands.

AdrianC

m0t wrote: »

The standard at which I expect a landlord to operate is higher than what I would accept if I were in my own home

Really...?

So things that - if you were paying - you would quite happily live with, you would _expect_ to be sorted just because it's somebody else paying.

Having previously lit hobs with matches/lighters I have found it quite difficult to safely light all at once, especially if there are already pots and pans on the go.

Sometimes, I wonder how mankind has survived to reach our current level of technology!

Its also probably not such a good idea if you are a bit older and don't have steady hands.

I'll grant you that, but the OP hasn't given us any indication that that would apply.

BitterAndTwisted

The hob isn't "broken" and the landlord has not provided a "bodge". One of those battery-powered lighters is perfectly adequate and entails no risk in using one.

In this instance I think the OP is being unreasonable in his expectations.

m0t

AdrianC wrote: »

Really...?

So things that - if you were paying - you would quite happily live with, you would _expect_ to be sorted just because it's somebody else paying.

Yes because in the renting scenario I am purchasing a service from the landlord and wouldn't expect to receive something worse because the landlord didn't want to/couldn't afford to repair it. This is not the legal position but it is how I would feel in that scenario.

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

The hob isn't "broken" and the landlord has not provided a "bodge". One of those battery-powered lighters is perfectly adequate and entails no risk in using one.

The hob was almost certainly designed to be lit using an in built sparking mechanism and not by the use of external lighting apparatus.

Any other method of lighting the hob is a bodge regardless of how reasonable it is - you can bump start a car on a hill with a suitable gradient, doesn't mean you would accept a hire car that could only be started using this method.

mahoney1975

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

OP: this is a trivial matter and you appear to enjoy tilting at windmills. So, tilt away to your heart's content! Not that it's going to get you anywhere as the consensus appears that you are in a minority of one. This really should be telling you something if only you are willing to listen.

Save your righteous indignation for issues of disrepair which deserve your attention. This one does not.

I don't think it's tilting at windmills, on another tenant dispute they have a 10 page argument discussing why a LL was right in deducting costs for three light bulbs and sparky labor from the tenant's deposit after they left.

I asked a question above but nobody seems to have gone anywhere near it. If I broke the spark unit would the LL accept a lighter for the damage? I doubt...

You are looking at it on its own merit but I already explained there is a long history of repair issues and legal discrepancies some of which have cost me money.

jjlandlord

There is no doubt that the landlord is in breach of contract by refusing to repair the hob.

Now, the real question is how much time, effort, and grief it is worth.

(Also, when I was mentioning safety issues with a lighter, I had a cigarette lighter in mind)