Landlord charging for next doors water

TaylorEightSix

Hello,

I was renting a property through an agency for over a period of 1 year. This has now been terminated and I have been out of the property for a few months.

Approximately 1-2 months prior to the termination of the tenancy agreement, I spoke with our water provider. They advised that there was an issue with the meter and as such they had been charging us an approximate figure. I arranged for someone to look at the meter and was advised that the meter was in fact turned off. As such we had been receiving water from the property next door.

The property next door is actually owned by the same landlord, and I was informed by the water company that they had been requesting permission to inspect it from all the previous tenants since the meter was fitted in 2008. It is my understanding that the landlord had the properties refurbished/broken down in 2008.

Given that the monies I had paid out related to a water meter that was turned off I received a refund of all the money I had paid to the water company.

When the agreement was terminated I was told by the agency that there were no issues with the property itself in writing.

However, they did wish to deduct some money for the water bill which had been charged to next door. They calculated this at 50%, and this money was deducted from the deposit.

I obviously disputed this figure altogether and advised them of this. I also said that I did not agree to their breakdown as next door was a flat for 6 tenants, and I lived in a 2 bedroom flat.

They then agreed only charge us for 30% of the bill in question. Whilst the whole figure remained disputed. This enabled me to receive interim payments for the monies agreed.

So the agency still has approximately £300 of my deposit.

I have advised them that they have no entitlement to deduct any sums from my deposit simply due to the fact that my liability is for the property which I rented as confirmed within the tenancy agreement. I have provided evidence that all bills have been dealt with and that nothing is owed by the property I rented.

However, they are still stating that I owe a liability for another property.

I understand that I am legally correct and that they don't exactly have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view.

Although, I would like any comments in this regard.

Kind regards,

Taylor

G_M

What does the tenancy agreement say?

It is likely that you are responsible for paying for water, electricity etc, and morally I'm sure you agree you are.

You were happy to pay for your water when you thought your meter was being billed, so clearly you accepted that water was not included in the rent.

However the wording on the agreement might be legally relevant. If it says "to pay all bills for water", well, the water is supplied by the landlord (via next door) so he gives you a bill, so you should pay.

If it says "to pay all bills from the water company" - you're in the clear!

That just leaves the issue of what is a fair apportionment. 6 people next door? 2 in your property? 2/8ths = 1/4 so 25& of the bill seems fair (unless you want to claim you only lived there 5 days a week whilst the other flat had weekend guests blah blah blah)

If you can't reach agreement, use the deposit arbitration process.

TaylorEightSix

Well the agreement actually states that I pay the bills for the property.

I work in law and know for a fact that I do not have any legal liability for a bill for another property. I have dealt with all bills for the property I rented. And it should be for the landlord to dispute the mess up with the water company. It is not my responsibility to pay bills for another property. It's quite simple really.

I just thought someone may be aware of a similar situation.

Also. I will be dealing with this matter by issuing court proceedings, as they are withholding my money. They have no legal or contractual right to do so!

jjlandlord

Interesting that someone who "works in law" finds it worthwhile to ask for advice on an anonymous public forum, which is not even specialised in law or generally read by many solicitors.

I would not be so sure that there is no liability to pay for water here...

Have you disputed the proposed deduction through the deposit protection scheme arbitration procedure?

G_M

TaylorEightSix wrote: »

Well the agreement actually states that I pay the bills for the property.

Also. I will be dealing with this matter by issuing court proceedings, as they are withholding my money. They have no legal or contractual right to do so!

Would help if you quoted the exact wording, otherwise all I can do is 'assume'.

As I said, the LL has given you a bill for the water. That comes under the heading of "the bills for the property." that you quoted above. Whether the bill comes from a water company or other 'supplier' (in this case the LL) makes no difference.

But since you say you've already decided what action to take, based on your work experience, I'm not sure why you are asking here....?

TaylorEightSix

jjlandlord wrote: »

Interesting that someone who "works in law" finds it worthwhile to ask for advice on an anonymous public forum, which is not even specialised in law or generally read by many solicitors.

I would not be so sure that there is no liability to pay for water here...

Have you disputed the proposed deduction through the deposit protection scheme arbitration procedure?

"Works in law" ???

I think you will find that I am not asking for advice, especially legal advice. I simply asked for comments and was hoping to hear about other peoples experiences with a similar issue. This is a money saving forum? And it does deal with tenancy disputes. But clearly it was a waste of your time and mine.

TaylorEightSix

What I will add is that as a tenant I entered into an agreement to be liable for bills for a certain property. I do not have any liability for bills which are addressed and for another property.

Nobbie1967

TaylorEightSix wrote: »

What I will add is that as a tenant I entered into an agreement to be liable for bills for a certain property. I do not have any liability for bills which are addressed and for another property.

What area of law do you work in? It's clearly not contract law. The address on the bill is irrelevant to the matter of liability for the service used. It sounds like the landlord has an arguable case and it would be unwise to let this get to court and end up paying costs. Make an offer to pay the 25% and then get on with your life, or continue arguing with people on here:rotfl:

G_M

TaylorEightSix wrote: »

"Works in law" ???

I think you will find that I am not asking for advice, especially legal advice. I simply asked for comments and was hoping to hear about other peoples experiences with a similar issue. This is a money saving forum? And it does deal with tenancy disputes. But clearly it was a waste of your time and mine.

I struggle to comprehend.

Yes - it's a moneysaving forum, so we could just advise you not to pay and to claim back your deposit. thus maximising your money.

except that this is a legal issue. If losing a court case will cost you more than settling the bill, then settling is clearly 'moneysaving'.

You say you just want "other peoples experiences with a similar issue". Well, it's an unusual scenario so there will be few others with similar issues. And unless their issue was identical, I fail to see how it can help you.

Just because A N Other Poster successfully sued a LL who charged for privately provided water does not mean you will succeed unless you contracts etc were identical.

fablanta

What exactly happened to the water meter/water supply? You use the phrase, the meter was in fact turned off, but I would imagine that it has no facility to be turned off while leaving the supply of water running.

No fraud seems to be involved as nobody benefits from this to any worthwhile extent unless previous tenants had been using an awful lot more water than they should have. I would seem that someone made a mistake and the meter was: faulty; not installed correctly or the meter was bypassed during renovations.

OP is responsible for the water bill for the property she rented. This bill should have been based on the amount of water passing through the meter but since none was this should either be zero or minimal (I don’t know if rainwater/sewage is a separate area of billing). If the water company had thought she owed them the money she would not have received a full refund from them.

Something that fascinates me is exactly who, if anyone, is responsible for paying for the water used? If the LL uses similar lease conditions for all his tenants then the water bill for next door would be paid for by his tenants. If the neighbours have no water meter installed the bill there would just have been based on the rateable value and so they would have incurred no extra expense. If they also had a water meter fitted then the tenants there have been paying about a third more for their water since 2008 and should be owed some money (I wonder if they would even know? I can’t see the water company telling them if they have been overpaying). The water company can’t/won’t charge the OP and they might even owe money to next door’s tenants so they can’t recover the money from them either therefore it has to be the LL that the water company has billed, being the owner of the property. That being the case we now come to another crucial question, which came first the referb. or the meter? If the meter installation was botched the water company might have no right to charge retrospectively. If the LL’s plumbers messed up then the LL should be responsible (but can sue his plumbers).

The LL is trying to pass the bill on to her but the water company has already determined that she does not owe them anything (even though she did use the water). He does not have the right to make deductions from her deposit because he has incurred a bill related to one of the services she contracted to pay for. It’s a bill that’s owed not necessarily a bill she owes. Of course if wisdom had prevailed the water company would just have just fixed the meter problem and let the estimated billing stand.

G_M

The OP said:

I arranged for someone to look at the meter and was advised that the meter was in fact turned off. As such we had been receiving water from the property next door.

The property next door is actually owned by the same landlord, .... It is my understanding that the landlord had the properties refurbished/broken down in 2008.

It appears that the direct connection to OP's property was turned off/disconneted (in 2008?) and the landlord installed a new supply connection via the property next door. This may (perhaps) have been done to reduce costs if next door was not on a meter.

Hence the water company is making no charge to the OP's property (because no water usage).

We do not know if next door has a meter. If so, the water company will be billing next door for OP's usage as well as next door. If no meter, then next door's bill for unlimited water is still covering use by both properties.

This may explain why

they (water company) had been requesting permission to inspect it from all the previous tenants since the meter was fitted in 2008.