Can't afford to fix boiler

Salemicus

AdrianC said:

Salemicus said:

The trouble is that when people stop paying rent they are the bullies and the thieves.

You have said this repeatedly, and you are mistaken. That is not what theft is. Theft is when you take possession of something that doesn't belong to you, in a dishonest way. If you rented a property never intending to pay the rent, that would perhaps be theft (or fraud). But if after taking possession of a rental property in an honest way, you later decide not to pay, that isn't theft. That's just breaching a contract - an archetypal example of what civil courts are there to remedy.

"...intent to permanently deprive..."

I am aware! And there are other technical issues too, like I wrote "doesn't belong to you," but actually the law says "belonging to another" - so for the very rare stuff that doesn't belong to anyone, my statement isn't right. And is "take possession of" exactly the same as "appropriate"? And so on.

But this isn't a model answer for law school, this is trying to explain theft in layman's terms to someone who thinks every time you don't pay a bill, that's theft. Intention to permanently deprive is the most complicated and unclear part of the whole definition (is stealing someone's flat for a year permanent deprivation - almost certainly yes!) and there is no need to muddy the waters. It's not relevant here, so I didn't bring it up.

Angela_D_3

See technically it id theft in lsymans tetms because the time/services has been permanently and intentionally taken.  You would be charged with theft if you deliberately didn't pay your hairdressers.  I see no difference with utilising the facilities of a building you have no intention of paying for. Time  for a test case.   

AdrianC

Salemicus said:

AdrianC said:

Salemicus said:

The trouble is that when people stop paying rent they are the bullies and the thieves.

You have said this repeatedly, and you are mistaken. That is not what theft is. Theft is when you take possession of something that doesn't belong to you, in a dishonest way. If you rented a property never intending to pay the rent, that would perhaps be theft (or fraud). But if after taking possession of a rental property in an honest way, you later decide not to pay, that isn't theft. That's just breaching a contract - an archetypal example of what civil courts are there to remedy.

"...intent to permanently deprive..."

I am aware! And there are other technical issues too, like I wrote "doesn't belong to you," but actually the law says "belonging to another" - so for the very rare stuff that doesn't belong to anyone, my statement isn't right. And is "take possession of" exactly the same as "appropriate"? And so on.

But this isn't a model answer for law school, this is trying to explain theft in layman's terms to someone who thinks every time you don't pay a bill, that's theft. Intention to permanently deprive is the most complicated and unclear part of the whole definition (is stealing someone's flat for a year permanent deprivation - almost certainly yes!) and there is no need to muddy the waters. It's not relevant here, so I didn't bring it up.

...I'm agreeing with you...

Aranyani

caprikid1 said:

Aranyani said:

caprikid1 said:

I would like to understand how long most of the landlords with more than one property could remain solvent if all of their rent stopped for 6 months. I think there are some harsh / self righteous comments being aimed at the OP. I agree that renting a property whilst in a DMP was probably the wrong move but some of the unsubstantiated comments are IMHO unacceptable.

6-12 months without rent is exactly the kind of thing potential landlords should consider and plan for before they go into the business.  It’s not so out there or unusual. 

Sorry please read again,,, "solvent if all of their rent stopped for 6 months" I agree you should be able to sustain it on the odd individual property but no portfolio landlord would keep enough cash coverage for all. They would have re-invested it long ago.

More fool them, they should keep a very substantial sum easily accessible. 

grumiofoundation

Angela_D_3 said:

See technically it id theft in lsymans tetms because the time/services has been permanently and intentionally taken.  You would be charged with theft if you deliberately didn't pay your hairdressers.  I see no difference with utilising the facilities of a building you have no intention of paying for. Time  for a test case.   

No it is not theft (as has been explained). Not paying rent is breach of contract, therefore civil. A tenant doing damage to property could be construed as criminal damage and in that case would a criminal matter (a landlord illegally evicting a tenant, or not doing a GSC is a criminal offence). 

Applying both "technically" and "layman's terms" when discussing legal definitions is contradictory.  

The fact you see no difference means literally nothing, especially since you don't seem to believe in the rule of law anyway. 

2nd_time_buyer

YorkieDave said:

...

I've been very careful who I've chosen as tenants, so I think I've been unlucky.
Could I have been more prepared, sure. Will I get out of the property game, yes, as soon as I can! 

Sorry to hear you have had such bad luck.  My inclination would be to use the very little leverage you have in the situation to try to get them to vacate the property asap (e.g. agree to not chase the unpaid rent if they leave within 2 weeks). In any case the chances of recovering the rent at this stage are slim at best. 

Jumblebumble

AdrianC said:

Benefit of the doubt doesn't give the tenants a decent home.

Don't they deserve that same "benefit of the doubt" as to their own financial situations...? They're the ones living in an unheated house in mid-December.

If they posted in here, the advice they would be given would be broadly along the lines of...

• No, you cannot withhold your rent.
• Yes, your landlord has a legal obligation.
• Your easiest resolution is to move.

From the OP's angle, the easiest solution is to see if the council can provide emergency funding, which will likely come with a charge against the property.

We could look at this a different way
The tenants entered into an agreement with the landlord that they would pay money and receive a working boiler in return.
The tenants have for what ever reason not kept to their side of the agreement.
The landlord now does not have the money that the tenants agreed to pay that he can use to keep the boiler working that he said he would provide in return for the money.
Putting the legalities aside by assuming they do not exist and just looking at the "fair to both sides view",
 I am of the view that it is understandable for the Landlord who is skint himself not to fix the boiler any time soon as I cannot see any particular reason why he should keep to his side of the bargain if the tenants did not if he himself cannot afford to do so.
Perhaps you could offer to pay for the boiler repairs yourself  if you are so concerned about them being cold.
The tenant does not pay the rent because they can
The landlord if he wishes to, does not fix the boiler until just before the council actually server an enforcement notice  ( after many letters back and forth and a considerable length of time) because he can.
Any business in where both sides do not stick to their obligations may fail.

grumiofoundation

Jumblebumble said:

AdrianC said:

Benefit of the doubt doesn't give the tenants a decent home.

Don't they deserve that same "benefit of the doubt" as to their own financial situations...? They're the ones living in an unheated house in mid-December.

If they posted in here, the advice they would be given would be broadly along the lines of...

• No, you cannot withhold your rent.
• Yes, your landlord has a legal obligation.
• Your easiest resolution is to move.

From the OP's angle, the easiest solution is to see if the council can provide emergency funding, which will likely come with a charge against the property.

We could look at this a different way
The tenants entered into an agreement with the landlord that they would pay money and receive a working boiler in return. 
The tenants have for what ever reason not kept to their side of the agreement.
The landlord now does not have the money that the tenants agreed to pay that he can use to keep the boiler working that he said he would provide in return for the money. That is not what the money is for - landlord is allowed to spend his rent money how he wants. 
Putting the legalities aside by assuming they do not exist and just looking at the "fair to both sides view", putting legalities aside maybe, but luckily that can't be done...
 I am of the view that it is understandable for the Landlord who is skint himself not to fix the boiler any time soon as I cannot see any particular reason why he should keep to his side of the bargain if the tenants did not if he himself cannot afford to do so. No reason - apart from the legal requirement of him to do so. Your view doesn't impact the legal requirements of the landlord (unless you happen to be a judge/MP)
Perhaps you could offer to pay for the boiler repairs yourself  if you are so concerned about them being cold. rolls eyes
The tenant does not pay the rent because they can That doesnt really make sense
The landlord if he wishes to, does not fix the boiler until just before the council actually server an enforcement notice  ( after many letters back and forth and a considerable length of time) because he can. Legally believe this is the case, don't know how fast councils are (guess depends on council?)
Any business in where both sides do not stick to their obligations may fail. The tenants have no obligations (legally or morally) to keep the landlord's business running. 

Although I agree with you in some ways in principle - that the tenants probably shouldn't be able to get away with not paying rent but expecting the landlord to continue to provide services - that doesn't change the law or the reality. I don't really see what is gained by looking at it a different way?

AdrianC

Jumblebumble said:

AdrianC said:

Benefit of the doubt doesn't give the tenants a decent home.

Don't they deserve that same "benefit of the doubt" as to their own financial situations...? They're the ones living in an unheated house in mid-December.

If they posted in here, the advice they would be given would be broadly along the lines of...

• No, you cannot withhold your rent.
• Yes, your landlord has a legal obligation.
• Your easiest resolution is to move.

From the OP's angle, the easiest solution is to see if the council can provide emergency funding, which will likely come with a charge against the property.

We could look at this a different way
The tenants entered into an agreement with the landlord that they would pay money and receive a working boiler in return.
The tenants have for what ever reason not kept to their side of the agreement.
The landlord now does not have the money that the tenants agreed to pay that he can use to keep the boiler working that he said he would provide in return for the money.
Putting the legalities aside by assuming they do not exist and just looking at the "fair to both sides view",
 I am of the view that it is understandable for the Landlord who is skint himself not to fix the boiler any time soon as I cannot see any particular reason why he should keep to his side of the bargain if the tenants did not if he himself cannot afford to do so.
Perhaps you could offer to pay for the boiler repairs yourself  if you are so concerned about them being cold.
The tenant does not pay the rent because they can
The landlord if he wishes to, does not fix the boiler until just before the council actually server an enforcement notice  ( after many letters back and forth and a considerable length of time) because he can.
Any business in where both sides do not stick to their obligations may fail.

Except for one minor issue...

The law is quite clear that a landlord failing his repairing obligations does not give carte blanche for tenants to withhold rent.
https://www.anthonygold.co.uk/latest/blog/a-dangerous-tactic-withholding-rent-because-of-disrepair-1
And even if it did, the tenants are the ones who "started it". Withholding rent pre-emptively, because the landlord might fail to repair? Nope.

So we need to look at it from the opposite direction - can the landlord force tenants out by letting the property fall into disrepair to punish them for falling into arrears? No. Again, the law is very clear. Section 8 grounds 8, 10, 11 are the routes by which a landlord can obtain possession after rent arrears. Even issuing an otherwise-valid s21 after the tenants have started to complain about disrepair would likely fall under "revenge eviction", if the tenants got their act together and brought the local authority in.
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/revenge_eviction_if_you_ask_for_repairs
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/health_and_safety_standards_for_rented_homes_hhsrs

Thrugelmir

caprikid1 said:

Aranyani said:

caprikid1 said:

I would like to understand how long most of the landlords with more than one property could remain solvent if all of their rent stopped for 6 months. I think there are some harsh / self righteous comments being aimed at the OP. I agree that renting a property whilst in a DMP was probably the wrong move but some of the unsubstantiated comments are IMHO unacceptable.

6-12 months without rent is exactly the kind of thing potential landlords should consider and plan for before they go into the business.  It’s not so out there or unusual. 

 They would have re-invested it long ago.

Empires built on foundations of sand. Leveraging with debt has always been double edged. That comes from being greedy.