AST Clauses, Holding Deposits and Affordability Checks

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "10/03/2014 - 18:51":

I don't agree Romain.

Commercial leases alwaysoperate strictly on a full repairing and insuring basis, obligations on the tenant.

Domestic residential leases (agreements) operate 100% the other way round and always have done. Unless an agreement specifically puts a responsibility on a tenant in the absence of such clarity I'd argue Landlord liability every time. The Landlord has provided the appliances as part of the tenancuy on an ongoing basis. If there is no limit or evasion of repairing or replacement obligations on a Landlord I'd say they'd start with him every time and twice on Sundays.

The 1985 SAct deals very much fairly and squarely with structure and fabric and leaves appiances for making use of the Landlord's supply to the parties to sort out contractually. If the LL hasn't put that onto the tenant in the contract I'd say 100% every time if need not caused through tenant mistreatment or misuse of the item (note Mary even shows tenants how to boil a kettle!!) then Landlord is obliged to continue that supply.

Doesn't have to be a new fridge etc - just a safe one with reasonable life left in it.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "10/03/2014 - 20:53":

IO, what do you not agree with?

That there is no implied obligation to repair in a lease is a fact.
Whatever the situation is in a commercial lease, it is because it is explicitly stated in the lease.
The same apply to residential leases, as far as I understand, unless the law says otherwise. It partly does so through s.11. You do not seem to say otherwise when you say that it is up to "the parties to sort out contractually", ie. indeed there is no implied obligation to repair, so if not explicit in the lease then the landlord has no obligation (and the tenant hasn't either).

Reply to the comment left by "Simon Coppen" at "10/03/2014 - 14:14":

anyone can see provision of batteries are completely different to repair of appliances...batteries are consumables.

Romain

leases and agreements are the same thing but in practical, operational terms it is necessary to separate tham for two reasons.

First commercial lets are almost invariably leases, called leases and as you say start with specific insuring and repairing obligations - though in both cases dtructural rather than contents.

Second in residential lettings we are used to calling leases agreements and they operate differently. The implied obligation to repair or replace in my view (and I would suggest most Judges if and when tested) rests with the landlord because they have supplied the item in the first place and confirmed its provision in the inventory and that in effect they want it back at the end of the agreement.

In my view that would be the default position because the Landlord is providing the items as part of the agreement and for which, overall, rent is being paid.

I don't think the position is the same in residential, s11 is a red herring really because it deals with structure and supply of utilities.

I think the truth lies more in the HMO Management Regs which clearly place the responsibility to maintain on the Landlord. In my view it is only a short step fro there to any other residential situation, not a giant leap. Especially now with Selective Licensing.

My view is that to avoid any such liability the Landlord needs to state it in the inventory, though I still think it is not good practice.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "11/03/2014 - 08:44":

I think I understood what your view was, however, please note that I was interested the legal position 😉
It seems I won't be getting such references.

Note that s.11 is relevant because it explicitly mentions all the appliances that the landlord might be providing as excluded from the repairing obligations.
To quote: "... but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity".

We are looking at the same thing from two different angles.

I'm saying s11 is not relevant to this situation of a clause within a tenancy agreement - I know very well exactly what s11 provides for and what it does not.

It is the inventory that takes over where s11 leaves off, which is excluding white goods.

But the inventory, unless repair etc is excluded, is where they are mentioned in a document that is attached to the agreement. Hence if the LL has provided them and does not exclude repairing them I'd say he is liable. By implication if not specific wording - after all he only has to say he isn't to avoid any such liability.

I doubt you'll ever get a case in a high enough court to satisfy your legal authority craving Romain and as we both know unless it is a gold plated cooker encrusted with jewels the costs of finding out legally will never be worth the argument.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "11/03/2014 - 14:40":

"It is the inventory that takes over where s11 leaves off, which is excluding white goods"

Clearly the inventory cannot imply an obligation to repair... Since there is no implied obligation to repair in any case.

I think I'll leave it there as, no offence, you haven't got references to provide.

Give me your references or authorities that ymake you convinced if an item is supplied by a Landlord, and he does not disclaim liability for their continued working condition, that he can avoid that implication

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "10/03/2014 - 12:30":

I let unfurnished.

Sometimes tenants leave, or sell to me cheaply, appliances that are in good repair.

These appliances I provide to subsequent tenants on the basis of "no repair or replacement if break down. If tenant chooses to repair at his/her cost then they may take the appliance away at the end of the tenancy".

MdeB

Let's hope no-one gets electrocuted by the non PAT tested second or third hand applicances then.

You may disclaim repair etc libilities - what you cannot do is disclaim H&SE ones under Supply of Goods Act and various others.

Good luck to you - in my view anyone letting with appliances with unknown provenance I was going to say needs their head examining.

Let's be more polite and say you are taking an unnecessary risk. Electrocution or fire?