No handrail on stairs in rented house

lessonlearned

I am frankly astonished that anyone - landlord or otherwise thinks a handrail is unnecessary ......

I worked in construction for many years and there are very strict building regs that have to be adhered to regarding the provision of appropriate and safe handrails on new builds.

I am not sure whether or not the same rules apply to rented property but I feel they certainly should. A landlord should ensure that the property is safe and fit for purpose.

Why on earth anyone would think it is safe to do without one is beyond me, especially for the op in question. However as I am currently househunting I have visited several properties that don't have one so I'm not surprised.

Although we did have a hand rail in place At the time I did have to teach my toddler to "bottom bump" his way down the stairs when I became pregnant with my second child but that was only because I knew I wouldn't be able to carry both a new born and a toddler down the stairs at the same time......:rotfl:

I have actually fallen down the stairs a couple of times, first time I was fine, the second time I ended up with a very badly bruised coccyx. I considered myself lucky, it could have been much worse.

My elderly father in law used to visit every Christmas. When I noticed him starting to struggle I immediately had a second rail installed, ie one either side. He said how much he appreciated what I had done for him and he always used both rails.

Frankly the landlord in question is just being both greedy and lazy. ITs an easy DIY job and doesn't cost much to install a simple rail.

AnotherJoe

LittleMax wrote: »

This was in reply to OP requesting for a second time that the LL install a handrail - we do not know what the response would be if OP asked for permission to install a rail at her own expense.

If she was ok with it she surely would have said something to the effect of "you can install one at your own expense and then remove and refinish to original specification" rather than just say "this isn't something want done".

robatwork

AnotherJoe wrote: »

In the OP;

""With there being a wall either side we don't feel it's necessary and with the new tenancy to get the house right we have had lots of outlay in getting the house up to a good standard so this still isn't something we want done"."

Not "something we dont want to pay for, you could put it in at your own expense" but "something we dont want done" Full stop.

You're talking semantics, so I am replying in the same vein.

Both the sentences the landlord used contained "we". This can imply that they don't want to do it. It could also imply that although they don't want to do it and don't really want it to be done, that they would accept the tenant doing it at their own expense and making good after the tenancy. You've jumped to a conclusion by adding your own "Full stop". This still needs to be clarified by the OP.

If the LL was adamant they could have said "We prohibit this from being done under any circumstances". That wouldn't be open to interpretation.

unforeseen

baldelectrician wrote: »

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20151113141044/http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/br_pdf_ad_k_2013.pdf


Building standards
For all buildings


Page 14

And from the reverse of the front page:-only applies to new building work from 6 April 2013 and any building work started before that date and still in progress on 6 April 2013.

So not really applicable to an existing building. Changes to BR are not retrospective.

AnotherJoe

robatwork wrote: »

You're talking semantics, so I am replying in the same vein.

Both the sentences the landlord used contained "we". This can imply that they don't want to do it. It could also imply that although they don't want to do it and don't really want it to be done, that they would accept the tenant doing it at their own expense and making good after the tenancy. You've jumped to a conclusion by adding your own "Full stop". This still needs to be clarified by the OP.

If the LL was adamant they could have said "We prohibit this from being done under any circumstances". That wouldn't be open to interpretation.

I agree it's semantics, but I think in general language useage that's what the LL meant. I could of course be wrong with my interpretation.

The ball is in the OPs court to (a) ask for permission to do it , or (b) do it anyway and ask for forgiveness if it's discovered, using your understanding of what they meant, eg "oh, I thought you meant you didn't want to pay for it, not that you didn't want one at all"

If they (c) ask for permission and are rebuffed they are probably on dodgier ground going ahead at that point.

Rosemary7391

lessonlearned wrote: »

I am frankly astonished that anyone - landlord or otherwise thinks a handrail is unnecessary ......

I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks they need one, but for myself I'm happy either way. In my experience I'm more likely to bruise my hip on that sort of thing than use it for its intended purpose!

Are banisters really attached strongly enough to prevent one from falling by grabbing it anyway? The only time I recall trying this the banister in question came down with me... So no more helpful than a wall really.

FBaby

Why on earth anyone would think it is safe to do without one is beyond me,

Because most people can go up and down stairs without needing to hold on to something. Because walls mean you are not at risk of falling off the stairs.

After reading this thread, I thought back to my pregnancy and although there was a banister, it was only half way until the wall took over. I never bothered using it because I didn't need it to go up or down safely.

I would say that most non-disabled pregnant women wouldn't require a handrail to feel safe. As for toddlers, like most parents, I taught them to go down on their bums/backwards and wouldn't have trusted them to go down even holding the rail until I knew they were steady enough to go up/down on their feet without holding my hand.

If OP has issues about her balance, then surely this is something she would have ensure was there when house hunting. In any case, she can do what she wants in the property as long as she removes it when she moves and decorate, but I'm sure she would rather the costs to be borne by the landlord even though it would only be for her benefit with the risk that OPs then decides the place is too small for her growing family and gives notice only a few months later.

AnotherJoe

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks they need one, but for myself I'm happy either way. In my experience I'm more likely to bruise my hip on that sort of thing than use it for its intended purpose!

Are banisters really attached strongly enough to prevent one from falling by grabbing it anyway? The only time I recall trying this the banister in question came down with me... So no more helpful than a wall really.

Well thats what they are for, so obviously in this case they were badly installed.

lessonlearned

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Well thats what they are for, so obviously in this case they were badly installed.

Agree - They are meant to withstand full body weight, so the bannister in question was not fit for purpose.

Rosemary7391

lessonlearned wrote: »

Agree - They are meant to withstand full body weight, so the bannister in question was not fit for purpose.

It was an old building, so probably was fine when installed, just suffering from many years of use.