Responsibilities of a tenant in cold weather

Section62

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

CurlySue2017 said:

Section62 said:

Good outcome and thanks for feeding back to the forum.

The interesting thing is that on the other thread over the weekend you appeared to be strongly supporting an argument that contacting a tenant in this kind of way would amount to 'harassment'... so it is especially good that you've been able to clear up any misunderstanding about that in your own situation.

Oh dear, are you still stinging over that thread?  It's OK to be wrong sometimes, nobody is perfect

"Stinging"?

No, just pointing out that contacting a tenant over an issue (and in this case just a potential issue) is a normal part of the landlord/tenant relationship and not "harassment".

In this case the OP's letting agent has contacted their tenants at least twice about the same thing, and has promised the OP they will contact the tenants about it a further time.  If that isn't unlawful "harassment"....

There is a difference between sending an email (from the letting agency) reminding the tenant of their responsibilities during cold weather than what was happening in the other thread where the landlord was turning up unannounced at the house to check up on his tenants boyfriend.

How, in law, is the email coming from a letting agency any diferent to a message from the landlord?

If the neighbour of the OP's tenant contacts the OP over Christmas to say they have noticed the boiler is off, the tenant is not around, and there is water pouring out of a pipe, would the OP be 'allowed' to go to the property "unanounced" to check for themself, or would that be "harassment"?

JReacher1 said:

Think you should let us go though 😃

I think it is important that people coming to the forum for advice should be able to get clear and accurate advice, and not be misled.

The OP has been given clarity from their letting agent about how this situation can be dealt with.  Which accords with what knowledgeable posters on this forum would have said as well.

I think that was worthy of comment.  I'm not sure that "Think you should let us go though" adds anything of value to the thread though.

Edit:Typo

kinger101

Norman_Castle said:

theartfullodger said:

The great Lord Denning stated in "Warren v Keen" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v_Keen

""" But what does it mean, "to use the premises in a tenant-like manner"? It can, I think, best be shown by some illustrations. The tenant must take proper care of the place. He must, if he is going away for the winter, turn off the water and empty the boiler. He must clean the chimneys, when necessary, and also the windows. He must mend the electric light when it fuses. He must unstop the sink when it is blocked by his waste. In short, he must do the little jobs about the place which a reasonable tenant would do. In addition, he must, of course, not damage the house, wilfully or negligently; and he must see that his family and guests do not damage it; and if they do, he must repair it. But apart from such things, if the house falls into disrepair through fair wear and tear or lapse of time or for any reason not caused by him, then the tenant is not liable to repair it."""


Ah, but what about the 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v_Keen

Facts

A property was damaged after pipes froze, and the landlord sought to hold the tenant responsible for dilapidations.

Judgment

The Court below found for the landlord. The Court of Appeal overturned this and found for the tenant.

But they're not the facts at all.  And Denning was one of the appeal judges.

https://www.bacommercial.com/case-law/warren-v-keen-1953/

Section62

kinger101 said:

Norman_Castle said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v_Keen

Facts

A property was damaged after pipes froze, and the landlord sought to hold the tenant responsible for dilapidations.

Judgment

The Court below found for the landlord. The Court of Appeal overturned this and found for the tenant.

But they're not the facts at all.  And Denning was one of the appeal judges.

It was the lower court which found in favour of the landlord.  The appeal court (including Denning) then overturned that ruling.

The "Facts" are correct.

CurlySue2017

elsien said:

I do not perceive anyone hounding anyone. What I do see is knowledgeable posters in different parts of the forum not just this housing part attempting to clarify where there are discrepancies in the information being given, or where information is being given could be potentially misleading.  That is all. 

Sorry but just because someone is a regular poster with a large post count, it does not make them automatically more knowledgeable than anyone else here and others have the right to call them out on that if they so wish

From what the poster in question has posted, I would seriously question whether they are "more knowledgeable" about anything

JReacher1

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

You shouldn't really carry on arguments onto different threads as its petty and creates an unfriendly atmosphere on the forum.

I thanked the poster for giving us feedback.

I referenced the other thread because - IMV - there is crossover in terms of a landlord wanting a tenant to do something, whether that something is reasonable, and how the communication of that expectation/wish can be take place without the landlord contravening the law.

I said that it was especially good the OP has been able to to clear up any misunderstanding about that in their own situation.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion you have.

On the legal point, this is what the legislation says.  There is no difference in law between the communication or act being done by the landlord or agent, if it is a communication or act which is capable of causing (legal) 'harassment' -

(3A)Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or

(b)he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,

and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/43

You are being deliberately obtuse. 

Any normal sensible person can see the difference between a letting agency sending an email reminding their tenants of their responsibilities in extreme weather and a landlord turning up unannounced at their tenants house to investigate her partner.

FYI despite numerous attempts by you to get the OP to engage with you he has never replied to you so I suspect you're on his ignore list .  As I suggested earlier on, maybe just leave the guy alone :-)