Landlord wants us to continue paying rent after we vacate property

Bizzywizard

I'm afarid you should of had the sink fixed as soon a YOU broke it, they are very hard to break! This is not a leaking tap which the Landlord would fix, this is damage. There are plenty of sinks to buy, I suspect the one you have broken is not on the cheap end, is it part of a unit? The issue you have is the Landlord cannot rent the property once you leave as the new tenant cannot use a broken sink. Hence him requesting the continued rent until its replaced, which I don't think is unreasonible. This puts the pressure on you to fix it asap, so you don't incur more costs and the potential of court costs. 

For the others on here saying its down to the Landlord to take it from the deposit. What it if they have broken/damaged anything else? I suspect the deposit would not cover it. 

I feel sorry for the Landlord in this instance and no I am not a Landlord! 

Ellie_Phant_619

Section62 said:

Ellie_Phant_619 said:

The landlord is obliged to minimise his loss - which clearly he sint doing. And in anycase liability for rent ends when your leave (having served notice). The LL would need to demostrate a tangible and mitigated loss for that period - which clearly isnt the case if he's waiting two months to replace a sink.

Is it clear? (ref tangible and mitigated loss) There are currently global supply chain problems and shortages of a wide variety of items.  Coupled with a period of extreme activity in the building and construction industry.

It isn't wholly unsurprising that it might take two months to obtain a specific type of sink and have availablity of a competent person to fit it.  Other threads on this forum testify to the difficulties some people are having.

The question is whether it is reasonable for the landlord to want to wait for a specific type of sink by a preferred tradesperson, or just have whatever is available fitted asap by the first person who can do the job.

A specific is not what the LL is entitled to, if it's cheaper to replace with a non-specific whilst awaiting the various parts, then that is what he should do; and it certainly would be cheaper than the £1500 + costs that he wants to charge.

newsgroupmonkey_

Bizzywizard said:

I'm afarid you should of had the sink fixed as soon a YOU broke it, they are very hard to break! This is not a leaking tap which the Landlord would fix, this is damage. There are plenty of sinks to buy, I suspect the one you have broken is not on the cheap end, is it part of a unit? The issue you have is the Landlord cannot rent the property once you leave as the new tenant cannot use a broken sink. Hence him requesting the continued rent until its replaced, which I don't think is unreasonible. This puts the pressure on you to fix it asap, so you don't incur more costs and the potential of court costs. 

For the others on here saying its down to the Landlord to take it from the deposit. What it if they have broken/damaged anything else? I suspect the deposit would not cover it. 

I feel sorry for the Landlord in this instance and no I am not a Landlord! 

Probably just as well.

You're unfortunately wrong in many of the aspects of your post.

I'm afarid you should of had the sink fixed as soon a YOU broke it, they are very hard to break!

Actually, that's not the case at all. It must be either fixed before the tenant leaves, or the tenant must pay for the Landlord to replace it (Usually taken from the deposit)

The issue you have is the Landlord cannot rent the property once you leave as the new tenant cannot use a broken sink

It's not the tenants problem. This is part and parcel of being a Landlord. LLs need to accept that there are often gaps between tenancies. My folks have a number of properties and they fully decorate top to bottom when a fairly long tenancy has been ended. Sometimes going as far as replacing a kitchen or bathroom if needed. It's part of being a decent landlord.

What it if they have broken/damaged anything else? I suspect the deposit would not cover it

In which case, the Landlord will sent the tenant a bill for the other damage and they pay it. If not, at this point the Landlord applies to small claims court (this isn't black and white - the court immediately now asks for mediation).

TripleH

@bizzywizard, the course of action is to recover damages through the deposit and if the deposit is insufficient, to recover the excess through the courts system.

The process is longwinded because of unscrupulous landlords in the past spoiling it by abusing the system.

If the tenant had done as you suggest and replaced the sink when it broke, this could have backfired on them unless they replaced like for like models.

That process would go through arbitration to ensure procedure is correctly followed and charges are fair.

Asking for rent for the while house until the sink is repaired is unfair because

1. The house can still be used until the sink is repaired. There will be inconvenience to new tenants until this. If the landlord reset it but reduced rent by £100/month until the sink was fixed, they will have looked to minimise their losses and the claim for the £100 would be fairer.

2. The law does not necessarily distinguish between a matching sink and a sink. The arguement would be that the landlord goes to bathroom showroom asks for 'a white sink' to replace the broken white sink. Seeking a matching sink would be viewed as not minimising losses when alternatives are available. The exception is that if the landlord can show a specific need for a specific type of sink to go there (eg small sink) then that could be an acceptable counter arguement.

My parents used to own rental properties so I am not unsympathetic to landlords. I support the landlord's claim for someone to come out and replace the sink at the cost of the tenant but support the view that depreciation needs factoring in and that if it is discontinued then an appropriate alternative needs installing.

GDB2222

TripleH said:

@bizzywizard, the course of action is to recover damages through the deposit and if the deposit is insufficient, to recover the excess through the courts system.

The process is longwinded because of unscrupulous landlords in the past spoiling it by abusing the system.

If the tenant had done as you suggest and replaced the sink when it broke, this could have backfired on them unless they replaced like for like models.

That process would go through arbitration to ensure procedure is correctly followed and charges are fair.

Asking for rent for the while house until the sink is repaired is unfair because

1. The house can still be used until the sink is repaired. There will be inconvenience to new tenants until this. If the landlord reset it but reduced rent by £100/month until the sink was fixed, they will have looked to minimise their losses and the claim for the £100 would be fairer.

2. The law does not necessarily distinguish between a matching sink and a sink. The arguement would be that the landlord goes to bathroom showroom asks for 'a white sink' to replace the broken white sink. Seeking a matching sink would be viewed as not minimising losses when alternatives are available. The exception is that if the landlord can show a specific need for a specific type of sink to go there (eg small sink) then that could be an acceptable counter arguement.

My parents used to own rental properties so I am not unsympathetic to landlords. I support the landlord's claim for someone to come out and replace the sink at the cost of the tenant but support the view that depreciation needs factoring in and that if it is discontinued then an appropriate alternative needs installing.

It depends how badly damaged the sink is. If there’s no way to use it, and nowhere to wash hands after the toilet etc then the flat is pretty much unusable. (The NHS is busy enough already without people washing their hands in the kitchen sink after using the toilet.)

One solution would be to fit a cheap replacement basin, so the flat can be used, albeit at a lower rent, then fit the proper replacement later. Between the landlord and tenant there needs to be some cooperation to minimise the cost.

TripleH

True.

It could be argued that the presence of more than 1 'bathroom'  means the impact is low.

I think my concern is that the landlord is showing little effort to minimise their loss and expecting the Op to meet the shortfall.

Our last rental property took 3 months to re-let and on a lower rent (the house would be unattractive to renters in winter), how would we know if the landlord wouldn't have similar issues with an undamaged sink?

penners324

What's wrong with a b&q sink? Then fund a handyman to fit it?

GDB2222

I think it would be difficult for the landlord to convince a court that he has mitigated his losses. So, it would be a risk for him to go down this route. Still, as a negotiating stance, it seems to have got the OP’s attention. 

Really, they need to come to some sensible solution between them, but that probably means that the tenant needs to pay more than just the replacement cost of the sink.

GDB2222

penners324 said:

What's wrong with a b&q sink? Then fund a handyman to fit it?

There’s nothing wrong with it, except that it is not what is being replaced. 

If I write off your car, would you be satisfied with a moped, as they are both ‘transport'?

babyblade41

To appease the situation at point of breakage I would have had the sink replaced with one that is available so that the accommodation can be ready for new tenants & informed the landlord as well.

A cheap replacement &  find someone just to plumb it it in.. very cheap fix & useable 

It may have been that the LL was happy with a replacement & said no more, they could say thank you for doing a temp fix but would really like the same make if possible . He could locate the new one second hand & ask for the payment of said 2nd hand sink when available.

The mistake you made was broke it, & not thought of the best way to get it fixed in time for the end of the tenancy..if this was in the loo & there is only one loo then IMO it can't be re-let .

I'm not suggesting the LL is right in charging you continuing rent after leaving, but you should have at least replaced it for something that is usable at the end of your tenancy so the property will be OK for the next tenants 

I doubt the LL would chase you for the difference in price if you didn't do it & he could still re-let the property