LL and EA delay and refuse repairs

BitterAndTwisted

If you've suffered a long history of repair issues then you should have voted with your feet some time ago. Are you a glutton for punishment or what?

God only knows what these alleged "legal discrepancies" might be. More trivia, perhaps.

If you broke this spark-unit thingy, yes, you might be charged for breaking it. But you didn't break it willfully or by omission and you've reported it to the landlord in writing, haven't you? Therefore it's unlikely that you can be charged for it

mahoney1975

m0t wrote: »

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.

That is what I believe as well, I am paying for the rental service and everything that comes with it. The landlord should after all (according to their contract) insure the fixtures, so I don't understand why it is a loss to them?

It was also mentioned above that you don't care because is someone else's cost. But this is why you pay rent in the first place.

m0t wrote: »

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.

This was my point indeed. It is not the end of the world, but if the LL decides how to exercise the terms of the contract at will, then by accepting this it would be like agreeing to them refusing any repair in the future.

mahoney1975

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

God only knows what these alleged "legal discrepancies" might be. More trivia, perhaps.

So now you are making assumptions that all issues I post are trivial? For example LL not disclosing restrictions of the council to the property that are binding without my prior consent? Do you want more?

If you broke this spark-unit thingy, yes, you might be charged for breaking it. But you didn't break it willfully or by omission and you've reported it to the landlord in writing, haven't you? Therefore it's unlikely that you can be charged for it

Again, this is the point of my example, why should I be charged for breaking it and the LL should not pay for fixing it. It failed after all so it does not fit the manufacturer's description to be fit for purpose.

BitterAndTwisted

The manufacturer's description has nothing to do with anything. A part appears to have failed. This does not render the hob unusable. A suitable alternative has been offered to operate it and the landlord is not obliged to have that part replaced despite your opinion on the matter.

You may not like it but that does not make your landlord in the wrong.

I'm bored with you now

silvercar

If you pushed this, the landlord would be in his rights to change your hob to the cheapest one available. Curry's have one for 69.99 with automatic ignition. Would you then be happy?

mrginge

mahoney1975 wrote: »

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...

I gave you some excellent advice in posts #5 and #8. Have you looked at either of these options yet?

AdrianC

mahoney1975 wrote: »

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.

To turn that around slightly, you're conflating the two. You have a genuine grievance over the other issues. Repeatedly pressing this one is only going to make you look vexatious and petty, and may actually downgrade those other genuine issues.

Either way, I think there's one really straightforward and fool-proof remedy available to you...

Move at the first opportunity.

Viberduo

I can understand the issues, things can mount up as I moved last year from a house where it started out fantastic and good value to walls crumbling, shower breaking, kitchen cupboard doors falling off and each time it was somehow my fault and was expected to repair it myself.

That is something to worry about keep all correspondance relating to it, as when you move LL will likely charge you for the "damage"

KatieDee

Perhaps you could write to your LL/EA and list all the issues within the property. If there are more significant issues then I would start with these, maybe adding on at the end that you're also experiencing issues with your hob and would ideally like it fixing. That way, you're not just making a fuss about a small issue but bringing the larger issues to their attention.

It may be that they still choose to ignore your requests but at that point, at least you can say that you've approached them amicably and requested repair.

I think it's irrelevant whether people think you're being petty or not. When I was paying a lot for a top notch flat, I wanted everything to be perfect. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen, not even when you own a property! It's about weighing up whether it's really worth it to kick off and get a bad reputation with your EA/LL for the sake of a tiny spark. As others have stated, it isn't ideal but they have provided you with an alternative device so you can use the hob.

mahoney1975

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

The manufacturer's description has nothing to do with anything. A part appears to have failed. This does not render the hob unusable. A suitable alternative has been offered to operate it and the landlord is not obliged to have that part replaced despite your opinion on the matter.

You may not like it but that does not make your landlord in the wrong.

I'm bored with you now

I'm bored with you as well.

The contract is clear and the contract does not state anything about alternatives. Besides a suitable alternative to your standard may be a poor alternative to someone else's, this is why the contract is clear.

The flat was advertised and rented with working appliances. The appliance is not in "repair" and "proper working order", whether trivial or not, it did not come with a ligher along in case the spark fails. So the appliance has "failed" and the landlord is in breach of the contract. You cannot execute the contract terms as you please. Sorry but what you are stating is the definition of the cheapskate landlord.