Rayburn safety concerns and tenant dispute?

Rayburn safety concerns and tenant dispute?

0:03 AM, 2nd February 2024, About 11 months ago 2

Text Size

Hi, we bought a property with a tenant on an AST periodic tenancy from a company that owned a large amount of land as well as our property. The EPC was only an F rating so we set to work on meeting the requirements to bring it up to at least an E (our intention is to eventually serve a S21).

We instructed a letting agent to manage everything. The tenant has been difficult in our attempts to get the work done as well as blocking tradespeople from going in to do work even though the appointments were agreed with her (eg the chimney stacks needed bringing back 5 courses and rebuilding. We found out that there was a chimney fire a few days after we bought it (but before we established contact details with them) and they hadn’t informed us.

We instructed a chimney sweep to go and do a safety inspection and he said the rayburn was not to be used. We gave the tenant a copy of the safety certificate and told them not to use it. We also bought them some oil-filled heaters to provide heating. We also purchased a halogen oven and hob which they declined as they said they mainly use an air fryer and microwave to cook.

Despite our instructions, they used the rayburn again and were told by the letting agent not to. The tenant stated that she’d be responsible if there were any problems and we reminded her it is our property, and not her decision to make.

We plan to eventually overhaul the whole property so don’t really want to spend loads on replacing the rayburn as we are looking at alternative heating systems. The rayburn didn’t feed the radiators but heat was felt through the walls.

My question is am I required to replace the rayburn or are the heaters sufficient.

Kind regards and ever grateful,

Caroline


Share This Article


Comments

Judith Wordsworth

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:41 PM, 2nd February 2024, About 11 months ago

Think you have more than just considering whether or not to replace the Rayburn.

If the Rayburn was condemned why wasn't it disconnected?

But

" we bought a property with a tenant on an AST periodic tenancy from a company that owned a large amount of land as well as our property. The EPC was only an F rating".

As not knowing when you purchased the property or when the tenant first moved into the property you might be breaching Regulations.

The Regulations mean that, since 1 April 2018, private landlords may not let domestic properties on new tenancies to new or existing tenants if the Energy Efficiency Certificate (EPC) rating is F or G (unless an exemption applies).

From 1 April 2020 the prohibition on letting F and G properties will extend to all relevant properties, even where there has been no change in tenancy.

1. The person or company you purchased the property from should possibly not have been renting it out.

2. Depending on when you bought the property, and you knew it had an EPC rating of F, ie after 1 April 2020 (possibly even 1 April 2018), therefore should not have been renting it out as from 1 April 2020

The max fine though is £5,000.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/domestic-private-rented-property-minimum-energy-efficiency-standard-landlord-guidance#enforcement-and-penalties

Caroline Crute

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:40 PM, 7th February 2024, About 11 months ago

Hi
Thanks for your reply.
Just to add some context.
We completed the purchase at the end of Nov. Our letting agent wrote to the tenants and after 10 days of no response we and the agents went to the property. They said they had received the letter and notice, but hadn't replied (no reason given).
We immediately began arranging for trades people to go in to rectify the issues on the EPC (only 2 things were required to raise it to E). Unfortunately due to the delay in them responding, and then Christmas, it made it very difficult to get people out for the work. We couldn't do the loft insulation straight away due to a rat infestation (exterminators came in) and the removal of the ivy that was their access route. The ivy hadn't ever been trimmed so it had also destroyed a flat roof allowing water to access the building (we've had this repaired)
We arranged builders for chimney stack work that the sweep identified. It has been very difficult to gain access with the tenants and they have even cancelled the builders on the day when they arrived. We also commissioned a new EPC (as the original was almost 9 years old) to make sure everything was covered. The rayburn had a full inspection by a rayburn engineer (following the sweeps concerns) and the flue was disconnected. The tenants have been provided with oil heaters which they are complaining about as they have been using trees from the property to fuel the rayburn (we observed the chopped logs) so there was no cost to them.
I agree about the company possibly breaching the rules by not carrying out the work to raise the EPC rating as they were the landlords in 2018. The tenants were never inspected during the tenancy and the surrounding land and outbuildings are like hoarder city. The tenants also have dogs which is not allowed under the tenancy but we have refrained from saying anything in order to minimise access problems.
Any advice would be gratefully received

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More