Dispute over heating - Landlord & tenant
Discussion
Red Devil said:
If there are no independent meters/controls which can determine who has consumed what, then 50% is the only logical apportionment. What was the previous arrangement and why was it changed?
to answer this for you: it's complicated. When we first moved in, the tenants in the flat below me had the heating on 24 hours a day. They were Asian and B said they like the temperature "tropical". This wasn't acceptable to the previous tenants of my apartment, so they agreed to pay 1/4 of the overall bill. The heating was around £600 a month then during the winter. I protested that this was all a bit silly, but honored the old agreement. When these tenants of B moved out, B said that we will be reverting to their usual arrangement, which is 4 hours heating a day in winter, split 50/50. I agreed to this. B said this has been the long term arrangement with A and previous tenants, all of which have been happy with this. Just for those people who are saying how can you have the heating on for 4 hours a day, is it not cold, the answer is: no, not really. The heaters are the old large iron jobbies, when they warm up they stay hot for hours on end, you really don't need to have them on all day. This is not a modern house with small radiators, they are massive.B's new tenants moved in last year, and the heating wasn't turned on until late in the year. In the mean time I had my tenancy contract renewed and the clause to split the heating 50/50 was introduced. I was happy to agree this as I had an agreement for 4 hours a day heating, all fine.
The change happened when B's tenants requested that B puts the heating on all day again as one of the tenants works from home. B did not inform me or ask for my input/agreement, and just implemented this to suit his tenant. As I have agreed to 50/50 split of the heating cost I am now disputing this as it wasn't what we agreed earlier in the year. This is the whole problem. B's daughter only mentioned that the heating was on for longer when we queried it recently, where she apologized for making the change but didn't offer any explanation or ask for any agreement.
Some Gump said:
You know that meme for "first world problems?" Well, that.
I've got the message loud and clear mate, don't worry about that. Let me say this much, if I live in a council block and paid £300 a month rent, I'm sure all this "suck it up" and "why are you worried about it" comments wouldn't be so prevalent. I thought on PH we are all a bunch of powerfully built company directors throwing cans of red bull out of our Bentley's at the proletariat. Seems like we aren't and some are touchy about those "with" who have problems whilst sympathizing and empathizing with those "without".
To be fair it shouldn't matter that the house is worth £25m or £200k, I just put the value in for perspective, and to show how ridiculous the situation is that there aren't independent heating controls at this property. Remind me to pretend that I live in Hull next time I post something about my living situation!
S1MMA said:
In the mean time I had my tenancy contract renewed and the clause to split the heating 50/50 was introduced. I was happy to agree this
What does the exact wording of that part of the tenancy say?S1MMA said:
as I had an agreement for 4 hours a day heating, all fine.
Is that actually contractual, or just a previous handshake that may or may not have been superceded by the revised tenancy?Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 10th February 14:38
S1MMA said:
To be fair it shouldn't matter that the house is worth £25m or £200k, I just put the value in for perspective, and to show how ridiculous the situation is that there aren't independent heating controls at this property.
... But that was the agreement when you moved in. No heating controls and 50% of the bill.You don't own the flat. If you don't like it, you should move. If you love living there so much and it's such a bargain that you don't want to move - then you'll have to endure the hardship of a warm home.
We rented 4 times before buying our first house - two were great, two had "neighbour issues". It happens when you rent.
TooMany2cvs said:
S1MMA said:
In the mean time I had my tenancy contract renewed and the clause to split the heating 50/50 was introduced. I was happy to agree this
What does the exact wording of that part of the tenancy say?S1MMA said:
as I had an agreement for 4 hours a day heating, all fine.
Is that actually contractual, or just a previous handshake that may or may not have been superceded by the revised tenancy?Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 10th February 14:38
Not worded well, and not specific enough, but I was told to take it or leave it and could not alter it further. Whether that is considered clear and fair and specific enough is yet to be seen.
The agreement for 4 hours a day was verbal, from B, and is why I was not too concerned about the wording above at the time as we had an agreement for 4 hours. Whether this is worth anything as it's unwritten is also up for debate, verbal agreements/contracts do hold up in certain instances. The contract does not supercede the agreement for 4 hours heating, it does not interfere with it, it just states I pay half of the bill. What the bill is is only defined by a verbal agreement, and then by a change by B without any consultation, review or declaration.
We seem to be going around in circles here, I will update as I progress further with this.
bigbob77 said:
... But that was the agreement when you moved in. No heating controls and 50% of the bill.
You don't own the flat. If you don't like it, you should move. If you love living there so much and it's such a bargain that you don't want to move - then you'll have to endure the hardship of a warm home.
We rented 4 times before buying our first house - two were great, two had "neighbour issues". It happens when you rent.
Another armchair expert - again, read the thread properly. I did not agee to no heating control, I had an agreement on control and agreed to pay half the bill as a consequence.You don't own the flat. If you don't like it, you should move. If you love living there so much and it's such a bargain that you don't want to move - then you'll have to endure the hardship of a warm home.
We rented 4 times before buying our first house - two were great, two had "neighbour issues". It happens when you rent.
You sound like you are a landlord, let me be clear: it's not as simple as "if you don't like it, move" I have rights as a tenant and a landlord cannot impose unfair conditions on my contract as I have said above and referenced CAB. If a landlord rents a property, just because they own the property doesn't give them full rights and control over the tenant, that's the good thing about the UK - there are controls and protections in place for tenants. Maybe you should have a look at these, as should some of the other posters who think they have all the rights and no obligations to their PAYING tenants. I don't live there for free and I don't owe my landlord anything, they owe me a fair contract and to stick to their WORD. Don't like it, don't rent out your property that you can't afford. I can afford to live there, so I pay rent and as long as I am it's my residence, and landlord's should respect my right to quiet enjoyment of the property without giving me hassle over a retarded heating situation.
You do not make the rules and you are wrong that if I don't like it I should move. I can and will fight it, that's my choice and my right to do so. If they decide to non-renew my tenancy, I will move, no problem. That's their right, no shortage of properties for the amount I pay.
S1MMA said:
I did not agee to no heating control
Yes, you did - you viewed the flat and agreed to rent it in full knowledge that it had shared heating with the other flat, and that you'd be paying 50% of the costs. You say that you have a verbal agreement to limitation of the time the heating's in use - if that's not because you have no control, what is it for?S1MMA said:
it's not as simple as "if you don't like it, move"
Yes, it is. That is by far and away the simplest, quickest and cheapest way for you to stop this issue from continuing.S1MMA said:
I have rights as a tenant
Yes, you do. But they aren't being breached. There is no legal requirement for a flat to have its own heating controls, and there is no legal requirement for shared heating bills to be divided in any specific way.S1MMA said:
and a landlord cannot impose unfair conditions on my contract
Yes, you do. But the question is whether these conditions are unfair or not... That's not a specific tenant's rights question, it's a basic contractual question.If you can't come to an agreement with the landlord, then you will need to take it to court to see if there is agreement as to whether they are. If it comes to that, then it's going to be long, it's going to be a ballache, and it's quite likely to be expensive for you both - and you don't even know if you'll win. Sure, you THINK you will. So does the landlord. It's an absolute last resort.
S1MMA said:
landlord's should respect my right to quiet enjoyment of the property
Not agreeing with you over the way the heating is controlled is not a breach of your quiet enjoyment.S1MMA said:
there are controls and protections in place for tenants. Maybe you should have a look at these
Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to them, giving a reference for the bit that supports your argument?Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 10th February 15:54
S1MMA said:
What the bill is is only defined by a verbal agreement, and then by a change by B without any consultation, review or declaration.
We seem to be going around in circles here, I will update as I progress further with this.
I think the reason we are going round in circles is that the contract you signed says you pay half of the bill. You say the bill is only defined by a verbal agreement. That is manifestly untrue, as the bill is clearly defined as the amount invoiced by the utility company.We seem to be going around in circles here, I will update as I progress further with this.
You are arguing that paying 50% of the bill invoiced by the utility company is an unfair term (despite having agreed to it at the point you took out the AST). Others are pointing out that the only way you will prove that (in absence of an agreement being made between both sets of tenants and both landlords) will be to take this to court, a process which will be expensive and likely infuriating, and will in no way guarantee that your point of view 'wins'.
Regardless of your personal view of 'tenant's rights', this is not as open and shut as you seem to want it to be. Litigating on principle is often a fool's errand.
I can't see this being anything other than open and shut, the signed agreement says 50:50, the amount being asked for is 50% what's unfair?
You mentioned that it's unfair that your neighbour is "in charge" well stay home and turn the temp down whenever he turns it up. Although if your at home you might well agree it does need turning on! Your issue shouldn't be with the bill it's perfectly fair, if both flats must be heated at once and it's a genuine bill then that is the cost. Where you are during the day is your business. Sort out the issue with the LL, either get the agreement changed to include your "4 hour" demand or get separate heating controls. Anything else is just a waste of time.
You mentioned that it's unfair that your neighbour is "in charge" well stay home and turn the temp down whenever he turns it up. Although if your at home you might well agree it does need turning on! Your issue shouldn't be with the bill it's perfectly fair, if both flats must be heated at once and it's a genuine bill then that is the cost. Where you are during the day is your business. Sort out the issue with the LL, either get the agreement changed to include your "4 hour" demand or get separate heating controls. Anything else is just a waste of time.
herewego said:
The Moose said:
Where I find this interesting is that a lot of people seem to consider its more efficient (and therefore cheaper) to keep your home at a constant temperature rather than having peaks and troughs in the temperature heating it up in the morning and the evening.
How do you make allowances for that?
It isn't the case so there's no need to.How do you make allowances for that?
S1MMA said:
You sound like you are a landlord, let me be clear: it's not as simple as "if you don't like it, move" I have rights as a tenant and a landlord cannot impose unfair conditions on my contract as I have said above and referenced CAB. If a landlord rents a property, just because they own the property doesn't give them full rights and control over the tenant, that's the good thing about the UK - there are controls and protections in place for tenants. Maybe you should have a look at these, as should some of the other posters who think they have all the rights and no obligations to their PAYING tenants. I don't live there for free and I don't owe my landlord anything, they owe me a fair contract and to stick to their WORD. Don't like it, don't rent out your property that you can't afford. I can afford to live there, so I pay rent and as long as I am it's my residence, and landlord's should respect my right to quiet enjoyment of the property without giving me hassle over a retarded heating situation.
Yet again you make the error that your dispute is with your landlord, it isn't. It is with a third party owner of a communal heating system which serves your property, and which you have contracted with your landlord to pay half the costs of without limitation of use or costs.
S1MMA said:
Red Devil said:
If there are no independent meters/controls which can determine who has consumed what, then 50% is the only logical apportionment. What was the previous arrangement and why was it changed?
to answer this for you: it's complicated. When we first moved in, the tenants in the flat below me had the heating on 24 hours a day. They were Asian and B said they like the temperature "tropical". This wasn't acceptable to the previous tenants of my apartment, so they agreed to pay 1/4 of the overall bill. The heating was around £600 a month then during the winter. I protested that this was all a bit silly, but honored the old agreement. When these tenants of B moved out, B said that we will be reverting to their usual arrangement, which is 4 hours heating a day in winter, split 50/50. I agreed to this. B said this has been the long term arrangement with A and previous tenants, all of which have been happy with this. Just for those people who are saying how can you have the heating on for 4 hours a day, is it not cold, the answer is: no, not really. The heaters are the old large iron jobbies, when they warm up they stay hot for hours on end, you really don't need to have them on all day. This is not a modern house with small radiators, they are massive.B's new tenants moved in last year, and the heating wasn't turned on until late in the year. In the mean time I had my tenancy contract renewed and the clause to split the heating 50/50 was introduced. I was happy to agree this as I had an agreement for 4 hours a day heating, all fine.
The change happened when B's tenants requested that B puts the heating on all day again as one of the tenants works from home. B did not inform me or ask for my input/agreement, and just implemented this to suit his tenant. As I have agreed to 50/50 split of the heating cost I am now disputing this as it wasn't what we agreed earlier in the year. This is the whole problem. B's daughter only mentioned that the heating was on for longer when we queried it recently, where she apologized for making the change but didn't offer any explanation or ask for any agreement.
In your position I would be spending the minuscule sum with the Land Registry needed to find out the exact title to the building/apartments. In particular that of A. Does she have a long lease from B? If so, I wonder what, if anything, it says about apportionment of utilities/service charges. The whole sorry mess is complicated by her, not B, being your landlord. My gut feeling is that you are between a rock and a hard place as B appears to hold all the top trumps and can chop and change on a whim.
I wonder whether B has complied with his obligation to notify the NMO - http://www.penningtons.co.uk/news-publications/lat...
A should be taking an interest in this as well because the Regulations may well affect her lease.
S1MMA said:
I've got the message loud and clear mate, don't worry about that.
Let me say this much, if I live in a council block and paid £300 a month rent, I'm sure all this "suck it up" and "why are you worried about it" comments wouldn't be so prevalent. I thought on PH we are all a bunch of powerfully built company directors throwing cans of red bull out of our Bentley's at the proletariat. Seems like we aren't and some are touchy about those "with" who have problems whilst sympathizing and empathizing with those "without".
To be fair it shouldn't matter that the house is worth £25m or £200k, I just put the value in for perspective, and to show how ridiculous the situation is that there aren't independent heating controls at this property. Remind me to pretend that I live in Hull next time I post something about my living situation!
It absolutely is ridiculous that there are no independant heating controls, especially in such an expensive house. Let me say this much, if I live in a council block and paid £300 a month rent, I'm sure all this "suck it up" and "why are you worried about it" comments wouldn't be so prevalent. I thought on PH we are all a bunch of powerfully built company directors throwing cans of red bull out of our Bentley's at the proletariat. Seems like we aren't and some are touchy about those "with" who have problems whilst sympathizing and empathizing with those "without".
To be fair it shouldn't matter that the house is worth £25m or £200k, I just put the value in for perspective, and to show how ridiculous the situation is that there aren't independent heating controls at this property. Remind me to pretend that I live in Hull next time I post something about my living situation!
It is also ridiculous to sign up to pay 50% of the heating costs of a place where there are no independant heating controls as the potential downsides would be obvious.
When this is pointed out it is riduculous to look at it as some sort of "iz it becoz I is wealthy?" dig rather than sensible advice.
Edited by wolves_wanderer on Thursday 11th February 13:00
Can't really moan about how rubbish PH is getting and be responsible for dragging it into the gutter Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff