Landlord Won't Fix Oven

Confusedandneedhelp

jjlandlord wrote: »

What makes you think that?

That would be my brain, using a logical pathway argument.

The tenants responsibility, always, is to return the property, less wear and tear, to the condition they received it.

So if they damaged the cooker, they would be responsible for the repair. But on-going maintenance is wear and tear, and the LLs responsibility. I dont think any deposit scheme has stated otherwise.

jjlandlord

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

But on-going maintenance is wear and tear, and the LLs responsibility.

What makes you think that if the agreement clearly states otherwise?

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

I dont think any deposit scheme has stated otherwise.

What makes you think this is up to deposit schemes?

Confusedandneedhelp

jjlandlord wrote: »

What makes you think that if the agreement clearly states otherwise?



What makes you think this is up to deposit schemes?

1: Because a contract cannot have unfair terms. Thats the law. And i believe these terms would be unfair, and a court would decide ultimately. Not me, or you, on a forum. My opnion is the term would not be valid.

2: Because the first port of call for the LL, if a tenant did not maintain the oven (according to said terms), would be the tenants deposit. Failing that arbitration, the LL would have no choice but to go to court.

3: The LL is always responsible for the Electrical and Gas safety of their property, by supplying an appliances which uses one of these (or both) the LL is responsible for making sure they are safe, thats the law.

jjlandlord

Ah so you were just giving your own personal opinion, without using references to support it, that this is an unfair term...

Confusedandneedhelp

jjlandlord wrote: »

Ah so you were just giving your own personal opinion, without using references to support it, that this is an unfair term...

Exactly now u get it.

If I wanted to provide evidence I would've done. Ultimately a court decides

jjlandlord

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

If I wanted to provide evidence I would've done.

You mean you do not have any evidence.

You missed my point that basically when you said the clause meant "f all" you had, in fact, no idea, so perhaps best not to be so positive.
Especially since if you research the topic a bit you will see that the starting position is rather that such clauses are generally valid unless there is a statute to the contrary.

mrmike1989

Ianwzzz wrote: »

My contract has a disclaimer stating the built in oven is the Landlords property but the responsibility of the tenant to maintain and repair.

I'd say that this is acceptable, providing that the cost of rent reflects it, and the tenant is aware of the clause. If there were more similar properties that cost the same whose LL was responsible for oven repairs, I'd choose them over you. One thing I love about renting is that I don't have to worry about these things, so you could be shooting yourself in the foot with that clause.

mrmike1989

jjlandlord wrote: »

Ah so you were just giving your own personal opinion, without using references to support it, that this is an unfair term...

Maybe he was trying to refer you to an unenforceable contract, where it could be mitigated if the tenant was unaware of the clause through misrepresentation or being pressurized to sign without reading. Undue influence.

jjlandlord

mrmike1989 wrote: »

Maybe he was trying to refer you to an unenforceable contract, where it could be mitigated if the tenant was unaware of the clause through misrepresentation or being pressurized to sign without reading. Undue influence.

Maybe even aliens.

mrmike1989

jjlandlord wrote: »

Maybe even aliens.

lol

(my message is no longer too short because I've have now used more than 10 characters writing this nonsense)