Does a landlord have to replace a washer-dryer?

AdrianC

nilsaj said:

Interestingly I have been looking into the ECP

Ah, the Energy Certificate Paperwork...

greatcrested

The minimum LL requirements are set out in statute as per clause 3.3. They exclude white goods like a washer dryer.

A contract can add LL requirements.

Clause 3.5 is ambiguous. It refers to "appliances....for which he is responsible" Yet it does not specify which appliaces he IS responsible for, other than referring back to clause 3.3, or the various regs listed subsequently (which relate to safety, not repairing responsibility).

So clause 3.5 coul be argued eiher way.Ultimately a court would have to decide.

So negotiation is the key here.

If replacing, it is often either impossible, or undesirable, to replace exactly like for like. But similar functionality should be provided.

A certain amount of good will is needed on both sides, but understandably you want the facility to both wash, and dry, but it might be reasonable for the LL to provide, for examole, two separate units provided they do the same job as before.

Note that the fact an item is 'noted on the inventory' does not in itself mean the LL is responsible for its maintenance (see the statute quoted in clause 3.3).

nilsaj

greatcrested said:

Clause 3.5 is ambiguous. It refers to "appliances....for which he is responsible" Yet it does not specify which appliaces he IS responsible for, other than referring back to clause 3.3, or the various regs listed subsequently (which relate to safety, not repairing responsibility).

So clause 3.5 coul be argued eiher way.Ultimately a court would have to decide.

Note that the fact an item is 'noted on the inventory' does not in itself mean the LL is responsible for its maintenance (see the statute quoted in clause 3.3).

Yes that's true it doesn't state explicitly what appliances in that clause however our contract does state:
2.4 [The tenant is] To be held liable for the fair net costs involved in carrying out repair and maintenance to the premises or its fixtures or fittings where such action is required as a result of negligence, or significant breach of this agreement, or misuse, by the tenant or his invited guests or visitors.

2.26 The landlord grants the tenancy of the property to named tenant upon the condition that the tenant is responsible for any accidental damage caused by the tenant to the landlord’s furniture, fixtures and fittings at the property as described in the inventory.

2.51 Not to remove from the premises any of the landlord’s fixtures or fittings, or to store them in a loft, basement, garage or outbuildings (if any) without obtaining the prior consent of the landlord or his agent.

Since the damage was not caused by our negligence or mis-use, and since we're not allowed to remove it without permission, would that not strongly imply that they are responsible for it? If they are going to supply it then surely it's their responsibility to ensure it's safe and in good working order. Additionally they have repaired the washing machine previously, just before I moved in my flatmate had issues with it and they fixed it, so could it be said they have assumed responsibility of it?

Slithery

nilsaj said:

greatcrested said:

Clause 3.5 is ambiguous. It refers to "appliances....for which he is responsible" Yet it does not specify which appliaces he IS responsible for, other than referring back to clause 3.3, or the various regs listed subsequently (which relate to safety, not repairing responsibility).

So clause 3.5 coul be argued eiher way.Ultimately a court would have to decide.

Note that the fact an item is 'noted on the inventory' does not in itself mean the LL is responsible for its maintenance (see the statute quoted in clause 3.3).

Since the damage was not caused by our negligence or mis-use, and since we're not allowed to remove it without permission, would that not strongly imply that they are responsible for it?

No.

nilsaj

Slithery said:

No.

How so? I am struggling to figure out whose responsibility it is. The contract says the tenant is responsible for repairs to fixtures/fittings that are caused by our mis-use, negligence, breach of contract. Logic follows that liability is thus excluded for  damages caused by something else (like acts of god or fair wear and tear), otherwise it would be included in the contract.

But the landlord is apparently only responsible for fixtures/fittings/whatever-you-call-it listed under section 11 of the LTA 1985. So whose responsibility is it? No ones?

Slithery

nilsaj said:

Slithery said:

No.

How so? I am struggling to figure out whose responsibility it is. The contract says the tenant is responsible for repairs to fixtures/fittings that are caused by our mis-use, negligence, breach of contract. Logic follows that liability is thus excluded for  damages caused by something else (like acts of god or fair wear and tear), otherwise it would be included in the contract.

But the landlord is apparently only responsible for fixtures/fittings/whatever-you-call-it listed under section 11 of the LTA 1985. So whose responsibility is it? No ones?

Correct.

If you want a new washer/dryer then buy one of your own and take it with you when you leave.

If you don't have enough room to store the old broken one to put back when you leave then make sure to get the LL's permission in writing to dispose of it to prevent any issues with the inventory when the tenancy ends.

nilsaj

Slithery said:

Correct.

If you want a new washer/dryer then buy one of your own and take it with you when you leave.

I see, sorry to keep going on but this seems to bring up more issues to me. If I bought my own one and left with it, then would the landlord not attempt to deduct from my deposit for not returning the inventory in the same state as when I first leased it? Essentially that would put me on the hook for something that has broken due to fair wear and tear, causing me to pay out for two washer-dryers. I'm assuming a court would side with a tenant if that happened, which ultimately would still leave the landlord without a washing machine at the end of it all so they would probably have to replace it sooner or later.

Anyway that is mostly hypothetical as they have offered to replace albeit downgrading.

unforeseen

If you got the LLs permission to dispose of the old one then that would be an amendment to the inventory

Pennylane

Slithery said:

Pennylane said:

Slithery said:

Pennylane said:

dimbo61 said:

Did it state in the advert that the rental has a washer dryer ? 
What is the EPC rating for the property ?
The landlord can't rent a property with an EPC of F or G !
You did not purchase the flat ! You started a tenancy agreement and the LL is being a bit tight fisted if he/she won't replace an electrical appliance that was in the property when you viewed.
Did you see any PAT tested stickers on the washer/dryer, fridge freezer and any other electrical appliances supplied by the LL ?
Has the property got an EICR ?

PAT Testing is not compulsory. It is good practice though. We always do it. 

Grrrr. I bet you say PIN number as well don't you...

Don’t know what you mean. 

The T in P.A.T. already stands for testing.
You just said 'Portable appliance testing testing is not compulsory.'

I am well aware of that thanks.  OH is in the trade. Customer  and job advertisements  ask for PAT testing or PAT testers.  I know it’s difficult at the moment, but I do think you need to get out more!  😂😂

Seanmac

nilsaj said:

Our washer-dryer has died, our landlord has stated 'the washer-dryer was there when we purchased the flat and we are not inclined to replace it as such, being both super expensive to buy and to run. We will happily supply a new washing machine without the dryer element, and a clothes airer. This will also be cheaper for the tenants in energy bills. I will source an airer if they want one.'

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

I would say this would be a breach of contract for not replacing the 'washing machine with a dryer'. When renting the place this could be one of the criteria for many to enter into a contract based on the facilities provided. It is an implied term of the contract.

The landlord is not claiming it was your fault or you misused the washing machine due to which it broke since they are willing to replace it but without a dryer. Therefore, the issue is not replacing like for like. 

Section 11 of the landlord and tenant act 1985 does not explicitly suggest electronic white goods like the washing machine is the landlord's responsibility. 

I still believe it is likely the court will find in your favor if you argue the contract was breached or frustrated, however, it may spoil relations with your landlord, and living their long term may become an issue. I would suggest trying to reach an amicable solution until and unless you think this would be a deal-breaker for you. I used to rent in a property without a dryer and used a 'dry clothes rack' which is cheap. 

All the best.