Wear and Tear question

kingblah

Hi all

Our tenancy agreement states that we are responsible for the servicing and upkeep costs of the landlord’s hot tub which is in our property.

Recently the motor bearings have been playing up as this is a 15+ year old hot tub, and we have only been living in the house for one year. I would consider bearing wear down wear and tear.

The landlady is claiming that we would be responsible for the cost of replacing the motor as our tenancy agreement states we’re responsible for “all costs” associated with the hot tub.

Is this right?

theartfullodger

Decline her kind offer (- unless ***.. )

Write to her reporting repair issue of bearings (& anything else..) using Shelter's draft letter...
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/how_to_report_repairs_to_a_private_landlord

If she wishes to get the money (& you decline to pay..) then she can either take you to small-claims or attempt to get it from deposit after you have left. I doubt any judge or deposit scheme would agree with her getting money.

15 years for motor bearings, involved with water, outdoors, sounds more than I'd expect.

*** Unless the place is so attractive, such a wonderful deal, that to avoid being evicted (landlord needs no reason to evict you..) it's worth paying whatever the cost is.

Landlords/landladies such as this make things harder for the decent ones: (I make no claim as to what sort I am..)

kingblah

Thank you! I will try that and get the annual service done and see if the hot tub company will confirm it is wear and tear. I am concerned about a revenge eviction though which worries me. Although we;ve just signed another assured tenancy 1 year.
There is also a broken blind which she wont fix as she said it was there when we moved in and we knew about it. Is this acceptable?

Thanks!

John-K_3

I!!!8217;m going to disagree with the poster above, upkeep and servicing sounds like it includes things like replacing bearings or a motor if it goes wrong.

If you think that it doesn!!!8217;t include items like this then what do you think that upkeep means in that clause?

theartfullodger

You might get away with that for an appliance, but the the hot tub is a fixture, part of the fabric of the property. LL pays.

bowlhead99

kingblah wrote: »

Our tenancy agreement states that we are responsible for the servicing and upkeep costs of the landlord's hot tub which is in our property.

That's quite a large mechanical item for you to volunteer to pay to maintain and keep operational, but if you signed a contract in which you agreed you would do just that... Other people might have chosen not to enter into the contract, and picked a different property, or agreed a different contract for it.

Recently the motor bearings have been playing up as this is a 15+ year old hot tub, and we have only been living in the house for one year. I would consider bearing wear down wear and tear.

Yes, it sounds like wear and tear.

It's like having a car and from time to time the brake pads need replacing or the brake discs need replacing or the clutch needs replacing. Those maintenance items that come up from time to time on a car are nobody's "fault", they are just wear and tear of mechanical components. By carrying out periodic servicing and maintenance to address such wear and tear items, the car keeps going.

So, did you put anything in writing between you and the landlord that said who would pay for periodic servicing and maintence of the tub?

Yes, you did.

The landlady is claiming that we would be responsible for the cost of replacing the motor as our tenancy agreement states we're responsible for "all costs" associated with the hot tub.

Servicing and maintaining or carrying out 'upkeep' to a hot tub motor or a car engine is not the same as replacing it.

Still, if you (perhaps with hindsight, foolishly...) agreed to be responsible for "all costs associated with the hot tub" and the hot tub was working when you were first using it, then it would seem that the hot tub should be working when you give the property back. One thing to recognise is that you won't have an obligation to buy the landlord a brand new motor if you started the tenancy with a 15 year old motor, because tenancy agreements don't give a landlord the right to 'betterment' of their property or fixtures or furnishings.

- if the motor is broke, a reconditioned decade-old motor is cheaper than a new one;
- maintaining in good condition the serviceable parts of the motor (preventative maintenance) is cheaper than that;
- not doing anything to repair it and just not using it until you move out and hoping the deposit protection service sides with you instead of the landlord, might be even cheaper, with significant risk that they won't because you agreed to pay to keep it in good order.

Is this right?

The questions are really
a) what does the contract and inventory report say about condition of the item at start of tenancy and responsibility for upkeep / repair / preventative maintentance / replacement of the item

b) is it likely to hold up in court (if the wording is ambiguous you might expect a court to side with the person who merely signed, rather than wrote, the contract).

In the absence of anything in a contract I would expect as a tenant that fair wear and tear on any part of the property (even a more 'luxury' item) would be responsibility of a landlord. Especially where, as Artful mentions above, it's a fixture/fitting which is part of the fabric of the building. Still, it's not like this is an essential item like your cooking/food prep space, or a bed in a furnished flat, or something whose 'broken down' condition would impinge upon a normal personal hygiene routine like a sink, shower or bath. So would not be implausible for the landlord to say to a new tenant "sure, the hot tub is available for your use as long as you maintain it" and a tenant to choose to take on that responsibility by way of contract.

The question would then be, what's the impact if you don't pay for the servicing and upkeep like you told us in your opening paragraph you had promised to do?

Just that you don't have a hottub available for your use? (which you might not mind); or that you don't have a hottub available for your use and then you still have to pay when moving out to to fix it, to give the property back in the condition you found it, having agreed you will pay for service costs to keep it in the condition you found it.

Cakeguts

The landlady is bonkers. Who lets a property with a hot tub? It is obviously there because she didn't want to pay to have it removed.

What she should have done was had the hot tub removed before she let the property. She let the property with it there she pays for repairs. She can't charge the tenants for her own stupidity in letting the house with the hot tub still there.

FBaby

Another grey area. If you rent a car, don't service it for the year you've had it, then it breaks down because you didn't change the oil, is the mechanical failure W&T because the car is 10 years old, or do you have to repair it to maintain it?

What's the cost of the bearing? Is it worth fighting for?

G_M

theartfullodger wrote: »

You might get away with that for an appliance, but the the hot tub is a fixture, part of the fabric of the property. LL pays.

I'd be interested to learn of any precedents on this.

My own inexpert opinion is that a hot tub is not "part of the fabric of the property". Might be wrong though.

If I'm right, then the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 would not require the LL to repair it - it would fall under contract law. And under the contract the tenant agreed to be "responsible for the servicing and upkeep cost".

Cakeguts

G_M wrote: »

I'd be interested to learn of any precedents on this.

My own inexpert opinion is that a hot tub is not "part of the fabric of the property". Might be wrong though.

If I'm right, then the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 would not require the LL to repair it - it would fall under contract law. And under the contract the tenant agreed to be "responsible for the servicing and upkeep cost".

It is an outside bath. If it was an outside toilet it would be the landlord's responsibility to repair I think?

Therefore an outside bath is the same?

G_M

Cakeguts wrote: »

If it was an outside toilet it would be the landlord's responsibility to repair I think?
Yes. but it isn't!

Therefore an outside bath is the same?

Firstly, a bath is not a toilet, but I see where you're coming from. S11 (1) b) says:

(including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water,

As I said, I've no direct experience/knowledge in relation to a hot tub. But I dont believe a hot tub is a bath.

Where the Act lists 'basins, sinks, baths' I suspect the intent is to include facilities for hygene and cleanliness.

A hot tub's primary use is not washing (feel free to correct me - I don't have one!). Surely it is recreational. Or for relaxing. You don't go out into the garden, jump in with the soap and loofah, have a scrub and jump out again.

Or do you......?

But artful's suggestion was that it's part of the fabric of the building, presumably refering to S11. (1) (a):

to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes),

and I still maintain a hot tub would fall outside the scope of that!