Can I get out of my tenancy agreement?

[JeffW]

To cut a long story short, I recently accidentally broke the shower in my flat. My landlord is demanding that I pay for the cost of replacing it. If I refuse, can he force me to do so through the Small Claims Court?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Regards

 

Jeff

[blitz]

If you broke it, why are you refusing to pay for the costs to fix it? You are not liable for anything caused by general wear and tear, but if you do accidentally or otherwise break/damage something within the property that isn't yours you are liable. The ll could just take the amount out of any deposit you have or if no deposit was given indeed apply for damages.

[JeffW]

The dial on the front of the shower unit was not attached properly. The previous tenant told me that he used to use pliers to turn the bit of plastic inside the shower unit that the dial would normally turn. I tried this, and the bit of plastic broke, meaning the shower had to be replaced. The landlord later told me that it was in fact possible to turn on the shower using the dial, even though it wasn't easy.

 

I accept I was partly to blame. However, had my landlord supplied me with a shower that worked normally, or advised me on how to turn on the shower, this problem would not have arisen. It also seems unfair that I am being asked to pay to replace a shower whose dial wasn't attached with a brand new model.

 

Jeff

[GlasweJen]

You should be asked to pay for a shower of the same quality which you had in the first place. to have you pay the full price to replace an old shower with a new one is betterment and this is unlawful. Do you have evidence that the shower was faulty?

[MrShed]

You say he should have advised you on how to turn on the shower. However, on the flip side of this, did you ask him?

[JeffW]

The previous tenant would be able to attest to the fact that the outer dial, and the ring of plastic surrounding it, were not attached to the unit.

 

Regards

 

Jeff

 

Jenschnifer said:

You should be asked to pay for a shower of the same quality which you had in the first place. to have you pay the full price to replace an old shower with a new one is betterment and this is unlawful. Do you have evidence that the shower was faulty?

 

In fairness, no, I didn't. However, I was acting on the advice on the previous tenant, so it could be argued that the course of action I took was reasonable.

 

Jeff

 

MrShed said:

You say he should have advised you on how to turn on the shower. However, on the flip side of this, did you ask him?

[hbltd]

You should be asked to pay for a shower of the same quality which you had in the first place. to have you pay the full price to replace an old shower with a new one is betterment and this is unlawful. Do you have evidence that the shower was faulty?

 

I would argue that being asked to replace something like for like is unlawful. Just because something may be old shouldnt mean it be replaced by second hand car boot sale offerings - old shower breaks - replace with new one, not out of the ordinary, not betterment.

 

JeffW you should have pointed out to the LL when you moved in that the shower was faulty. If you broke it (which you admitted) then you will probably have to pay for it unless you can convince LL that you should pay towards paying for some of it.

[GlasweJen]

It would be different if the OP broke a new shower but the landlord can't just go expecting you to get better stuff to replace old stuff he provided, that's just not right and it is actually a point in law - look through the stickies on this forum for more information on betterment and unlawful deductions from deposits. It would be a different story if the OP demanded that a new shower was put in place but I think that second hand showers work just as well as new ones.

[MrShed]

hbltd, with respect, you are disagreeing with the law here. You would always lose!

 

By the way, no-one is saying the landlord CANT put in a new shower and not a second hand one. Only that he can only charge for the cost of a "like for like" replacement.

 

Let me give you an example. Say for example that a landlord puts a carpet in with a 10 year expected lifespan. After 8 years a tenant damages the carpet to the point where the carpet must be replaced. By your argument, the carpet should be replaced at the tenants cost. However, this means that a carpet has been in place for 8 years at ZERO cost to the landlord, and in fact the property has been furnished with a carpet at the 100% expense of the tenant, who may have only been in the property 6 months. This is clearly unfair. The landlord is entitled to his "actual financial loss". Therefore, his actual financial loss would be COMPLETELY mitigated by fitting a 8 year old second hand carpet(as this would result in the landlord being in exactly the same position as if the damage had not occurred), NOT by fitting a brand new carpet, as this would in fact in monetary terms make a PROFIT for the landlord. Clearly most landlords would not fit a 8 year old carpet, and so they would fit a brand new carpet, and claim a cost offsetting the 2 years use they would have had, which equates to the cost of a 8 year old second hand carpet.

 

*breathes*

 

Oh and by the way Jeff I wholly disagree that taking the prior tenants words is "reasonable" - from a legal perspective. The tenant was not the owner or provider of the shower, nor is he acting on behalf of or is the agent for the landlord.

 

I'm not saying I wouldnt have done the same thing I'm saying that I would have been lax(and therefore you have been lax) in just taking the prior tenants word for it.

 

That said, I clearly do not agree that you should shoulder the entire cost. However, this is on the basis of the "betterment"/"like for like" details I have put above, NOT that I do not feel you are completely responsible for the damage to the shower, as I believe from a legal standpoint you are.

 

How old was the shower, and did you sign a fully detailed inventory upon entering the property? How much is the landlord attempting to retrieve from you.

 

Please dont be offended by my "apportioning" of the blame to you. I am not saying that you have gone and maliciously damaged the property, nor am I saying that I(or probably 99% of people) wouldnt have done the same thing. I am merely speaking from a legal perspective, and from that perspective you have been negligent in not perhaps being as thorough in communicating the fault/finding out how to use the shower as you should have been.

[Aequitas]

If the matter is not covered by the tenancy agreement, then it comes under the requirement that a tenant must "act in a tenantlike manner". This includes not only an obligation not to damage anything, but also an obligation to deal with the sort of repairs that a reasonable tenant would attend to.

 

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes upon a landlord an obligation to:

 

to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity)

 

Whilst the Act does not impose an obligation on the tenant to repair appliances, the fact that it does not impose the obligation on the tenant more or less leaves it with the tenant.

 

I appreciate that "the sort of repairs that a reasonable tenant would attend to" is rather vague and it comes down to a question of degree. It would include things like repairing broken doorhandles, fitting new washers to taps and replacing blown fuses. Also, the general state of the property needs to be taken into account. If the property is habitable but generally run-down the tenant cannot be expected to carry out a hundred and one repairs.

 

The replacement of a shower is not a minor repair, but does not come within the landlord's obligations (unless the tenancy agreement says it does). Whether it is your obligation or not, the problem in your case is that the shower was faulty and you tried to repair it, but in fact made it worse. You have rather handed the advantage to the landlord. I think the best you can hope for is to agree a compromise.

[hbltd]

hbltd, with respect, you are disagreeing with the law here. You would always lose!

 

By the way, no-one is saying the landlord CANT put in a new shower and not a second hand one. Only that he can only charge for the cost of a "like for like" replacement.

 

Let me give you an example. Say for example that a landlord puts a carpet in with a 10 year expected lifespan. After 8 years a tenant damages the carpet to the point where the carpet must be replaced. By your argument, the carpet should be replaced at the tenants cost. However, this means that a carpet has been in place for 8 years at ZERO cost to the landlord, and in fact the property has been furnished with a carpet at the 100% expense of the tenant, who may have only been in the property 6 months. This is clearly unfair. The landlord is entitled to his "actual financial loss". Therefore, his actual financial loss would be COMPLETELY mitigated by fitting a 8 year old second hand carpet(as this would result in the landlord being in exactly the same position as if the damage had not occurred), NOT by fitting a brand new carpet, as this would in fact in monetary terms make a PROFIT for the landlord. Clearly most landlords would not fit a 8 year old carpet, and so they would fit a brand new carpet, and claim a cost offsetting the 2 years use they would have had, which equates to the cost of a 8 year old second hand carpet.

 

*breathes*

 

I disagree. To compare carpets to showers is like comparing roast potatoes to brocolli. Agreed that a LL couldnt expect to have an old carpet replaced with a new one with no cost to him but kitchens and bathrooms are permanent fixtures that as a landlord I would not expect to have to replace on a regular basis. I have just taken back possesion of a property which was poorly looked after by the tenant, it needs completely redecorating and the carpets need proffesionaly cleaning - this is not out of the ordinary and wear and tear is considered when making deductions from deposit - the kitchen and bathroom are intact and apart from needing cleaning are in the same condition as they were when fitted three years ago, as I would expect not to have to replace for 15 - 20 years, if however the kitchen and bathroom had been wrecked would I only be able to pursue recompense for a portion of the replacement because it was three years old. That would be unfair.

 

Another comparison - I have a high end rental property with expensive fixtures and fittings. The kitchen has granite worktops and the tenant drops something heavy from a cupbourd above onto the worktop. The worktop breaks and has to be replaced. The tenant admits beakage, should LL have to cough up towards cost because the granite was a few years old. That would be unfair.

 

Your car is parked outside your house and somebody hits the wing mirror and breaks it off when driving past. They knock on the door and offer to pay for it, - but because the car is 5 years old they will only pay for half. That would be unfair.

 

 

Now if the shower in question is an old banger that should have been long replaced then it would be wrong for tenant to have to pay for it but if a properly working shower is broken that didnt need replacing I fail to see how the LL would then be "in profit" for having to pay towards replacing the otherwise OK shower.

 

Does like for like not mean same type and specification and not same age and condition?

[MrShed]

I'm afraid its not. A shower has a lifespan and as such a comparison to a carpet is 100% accurate.

 

Like for like means exactly the same - same age, condition, type and spec.

 

To be honest, the law is against you, so you are wrong, both legally and morally.

 

Oh and by the way, in your examples of the worktop and bathroom/kitchen, yes you would only be able to pursue for a portion of the cost. I cannot comment on the car example, as it is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with landlord/tenant law.

 

We can have this argument all week if you want, but the fact remains that your points disagree with the important points, which is the points that are encapsulated in law.

[Aequitas]

Accidental breakages (other than minor ones) ought to be covered by the landlord's insurance.

 

I think that hbltd's argument is all very well, but what if several appliances come to the end of their life in a short period? Is the tenant to be expected to shell out and pay for them all? Also, if the argument is correct, a landlord need only furnish premises at the outset and then sit back and let a succession of tenants keep the appliances up-to date.

[MrShed]

Do you not mean hbltds argument Aequitas? Sorry, just that is my exact point that you have mentioned *confused*

[hbltd]

Whatever!

 

whether legaly or morally if I broke something that didnt belong to me I would pay for it, not wriggle out of my responsibilities.

 

I didnt suggest that a tenant pay for every appliance when it needed replacing.

[MrShed]

OK so instead you suggest that a tenant should in effect maintain the majority of the property at no cost to the landlord?

[Aequitas]

Do you not mean hbltds argument Aequitas? Sorry, just that is my exact point that you have mentioned *confused*

 

Sorry - got confused as you were quoted at the beginning. :-| I have edited the post.

[Lula]

Personally, if I moved into a property with clearly a faulty item and then proceeded to accidently brake it, I would talk to the LL and see what he can suggest, telling him that it was like that when she moved in and offering a contribution to replacement.

[hbltd]

OK so instead you suggest that a tenant should in effect maintain the majority of the property at no cost to the landlord?

 

where the heck did I suggest that? All I have suggested is that a tenant should pay for breakages!!

[Lula]

the tenant should not have to pay for something that was already broken and in my opinion, if it only functions when a tool is employed then it is broken

[MrShed]

You are suggesting that NO difference should be made between a brand new device and an old device. This would imply that any damage should be compensated over and above the actual loss to the landlord, up to the value of a brand new device. Therefore, you imply that the tenant should maintain the property at no cost to the landlord, as this is, in practical terms, what would happen.

[JeffW]

But let's say, for argument's sake, that the item was faulty, and had it not been partically broken you would not have used it in a way that knackered it completely. Would you still pay the full amount then?

 

Jeff

 

hbltd said:

Whatever!

 

whether legaly or morally if I broke something that didnt belong to me I would pay for it, not wriggle out of my responsibilities.

 

I didnt suggest that a tenant pay for every appliance when it needed replacing.

 

Guys

 

Thanks for your replies.

 

I have a feeling my deposit isn't held under the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. If is the case, and my landlord decides to deduct the cost of the shower from my deposit, can I take any legal action?

 

Regards

 

Jeff

 

MrShed said:

You are suggesting that NO difference should be made between a brand new device and an old device. This would imply that any damage should be compensated over and above the actual loss to the landlord, up to the value of a brand new device. Therefore, you imply that the tenant should maintain the property at no cost to the landlord, as this is, in practical terms, what would happen.

 

In my tenancy agreement (a 6 month shorthold tenancy), it states that:

 

Provided that if the rent or any instalment or part thereof shall be in arrear for at least 14 days after the same shall have become due (whether legally demanded or not) or if there shall be a breach of any of the agreements by the Tenant, the Landlord may re-enter on the Property (subject always to any statutory restrictions on his power to do so) and immediately thereupon the tenancy shall absolutely determine without prejudice the other rights and remedies of the Landlord.

 

I've read the above over 5 times, and I'm still no clearer what it means! Can someone translate it into plain English please?

 

Thanks

 

Jeff

[MrShed]

I think it basically means that the landlord can reclaim the property if you break the tenancy agreement or are in arrears. However, this is an unfair term as it overrules your statutory rights. Never mind the "plain english" OFT rules!!

 

When did you move in? What type of tenancy agreement do you have?

[JeffW]

Thanks.

 

Would I be right in thinking that unless my landlord gets a court to agree to my eviction, whilst I am still in the period of my tenancy agreement it would be illegal for him to remove me or my belongings from the property?

 

Jeff

 

MrShed said:

I think it basically means that the landlord can reclaim the property if you break the tenancy agreement or are in arrears. However, this is an unfair term as it overrules your statutory rights. Never mind the "plain english" OFT rules!!

 

I moved in about 3 weeks ago.

 

It's a 6 month assured shorthold tenancy.

 

Jeff

 

MrShed said:

When did you move in? What type of tenancy agreement do you have?

 

Out of curiousity, can Mrs Patel legally turf Billy and Honey Mitchell out of their flat, or does she need to go to court?

 

For those who don't watch Eastenders, Billy used to rent the flat from Phil Mitchell, with whom he had a tenancy agreement. Mrs Patel bought the flat from Phil Mitchell, and didn't sign an agreement with Billy. She therefore argues that the agreement is null and void, as it was with the previous owner of the flat.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought Billy and Honey would have some legal protection against being turfed out, as squatters if nothing else.

 

Jeff

[GlasweJen]

I was wondering this myself though hasn't Billy got into arrears of late after losing his job for taking an afternoon off to go fill in housing benefit forms?