Dispute over heating - Landlord & tenant

[PurpleMoonlight]

S1MMA said:

I had a verbal agreement with B that the heating would be on for 4 hours a day. That is why I signed the contract.

The fact that B is a piece of crap that went back on his word and is now trying to screw me over says more about his ethics. Yes, you are right I trusted a landlord and trusted he would stay true to his word, which he hasn't done. Won't do that again. Sorry that we don't live in a society where people stay true to their word - I forgot we are all out to get each other. Thanks for your comments, no need to add anything further.

Except B is not your landlord. A is.

B has no responsibility to you, only his own tenant who wants the heating on during the day, which is perfectly reasonable.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 5th February 09:13

[S1MMA]

marshalla said:

So what action did you take as soon as you became aware that this was the situation ? Did you pay your half of the bills, or did you request a change to the heating arrangements ?

I became aware of the situation that the heating was on for longer than 4 hours a day a few months back - as my apartment became a sauna. B's daughter was contacted as to why the heating was on all day by my wife (B lives in Armenia most of the year) to which she was told that they have put it on all day due to their tenants wanting it on all day. My wife reminded B's daughter of our agreement and said we will not pay more than 4 hours a day heating. B's daughter said to take it up with B and the tenants of flat 3.

Now the bill has come it's all being debated.

[S1MMA]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Except B is not your landlord. A is.

B has no responsibility to you, only his own tenant who wants the heating on during the day, which is perfectly reasonable.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 5th February 09:13

I don't understand how it's only one way. Why do I not get a say in this when I pay for half of it?!

On that note, I can put my demands to A, pay for what I have demanded, and leave it there? What's the difference?

I cannot see why I have to accept what B says blindly, and why many of you are defending B and telling me to pay half of a bill that I have not agreed to and have no influence over, how does that make any sense?

[teabelly]

One boiler and two heating zones would solve the control issue. One thermostat in each flat. Then as B is at home all day they should be paying most of the heating cost.

I reckon you could solve it on the control side for a few hundred quid + fitting. Then agree with B that they pay 60% and you pay 40%. Your flat will be warmer due to theirs being heated.

Under new legislation tenants will be able to install energy saving measures and pay for them. You need the landlord's permission.

This new stuff may also apply: http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/?communal-heating-re...

I think your landlord can't refuse to sort it out and comply with the communal heating regs.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Your Lease with A appears to bind you to pay 50% of the gas costs incurred by B in the supplying heating to both properties. Unless there is a limitation to that cost stated in the Lease, or a written agreement with B supplemental to the Lease, I fear you are stuffed.

But you need to look at the bigger picture. No doubt the rent is cheaper than comparable properties because of the issues associated with it. Overall, you seem to be better off though.

[S1MMA]

teabelly said:

One boiler and two heating zones would solve the control issue. One thermostat in each flat. Then as B is at home all day they should be paying most of the heating cost.

I reckon you could solve it on the control side for a few hundred quid + fitting. Then agree with B that they pay 60% and you pay 40%. Your flat will be warmer due to theirs being heated.

Under new legislation tenants will be able to install energy saving measures and pay for them. You need the landlord's permission.

This new stuff may also apply: http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/?communal-heating-re...

I think your landlord can't refuse to sort it out and comply with the communal heating regs.

Hi teabelly - that's really useful, thanks for the information.

Would the one boiler and two zones be a whole new system needed, or modification of the existing system?

[herewego]

You could offer to pay for separate controls to be fitted.

[PurpleMoonlight]

By the way, I'm sure I read somewhere that heating is more efficient left on tickover than constantly heating/cooling/heating etc.

[BigBob]

I assume that Flat 3 has Planning for Business use

[S1MMA]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Your Lease with A appears to bind you to pay 50% of the gas costs incurred by B in the supplying heating to both properties. Unless there is a limitation to that cost stated in the Lease, or a written agreement with B supplemental to the Lease, I fear you are stuffed.

You haven't answered my questions:

1) I don't understand how it's only one way. Why do I not get a say in this when I pay for half of it?!

2) On that note, I can put my demands to A, pay for what I have demanded, and leave it there? What's the difference?

[herewego]

PurpleMoonlight said:

By the way, I'm sure I read somewhere that heating is more efficient left on tickover than constantly heating/cooling/heating etc.

It isn't.

[PurpleMoonlight]

teabelly said:

This new stuff may also apply: http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/?communal-heating-re...

I think your landlord can't refuse to sort it out and comply with the communal heating regs.

Will that apply though given the OP's landlord is not the supplier of the heating?

[S1MMA]

BigBob said:

I assume that Flat 3 has Planning for Business use

Could you explain more?

Funny enough the tenants of flat 3 have registered the address as a business address, and have undertaken business functions (including a large event with over 100 people) even though they are renting and I'm pretty sure they can't 1) use the address for a registered company address, 2) use the address for commercial purposes including conducting an event.

But they are the golden tenants of B, so they do as they please.

[S1MMA]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Will that apply though given the OP's landlord is not the supplier of the heating?

The bill is in his name, not in ours. I need to look in to it more, but if he is defined as a heating supplier he could well be stuffed.

from the regs:

“heat supplier” means a person who supplies and charges for the supply of heating, cooling or
hot water to a final customer, through—
(a) communal heating; or
(b) a district heat network;

This would apply to B.

[PurpleMoonlight]

S1MMA said:

You haven't answered my questions:

1) I don't understand how it's only one way. Why do I not get a say in this when I pay for half of it?!

2) On that note, I can put my demands to A, pay for what I have demanded, and leave it there? What's the difference?

Your opportunity of discussion was before your signed the Lease, not after.

By all means argue your principle until your landlord decides they have had enough and refuses to renew your AST.

Some arguments are not worth fighting.

[tony wright]

The guy in flat 3 working from home will be spending most of his time in a single room. Why don't you suggest he buys a couple of convector heaters for the daytime and go back to your original agreement.

[S1MMA]

tony wright said:

The guy in flat 3 working from home will be spending most of his time in a single room. Why don't you suggest he buys a couple of convector heaters for the daytime and go back to your original agreement.

Read above - I already suggested this but flat 3 tenant says he should be entitled to have his heating on when he wants it, as should I. The two are not objectives that can be achieved together though, which is the problem here.

[elanfan]

Seems odd to me that you only need heat for 4 hours a day, if you work until 7pm you'd need heat for a good 4 hours in the evenings and what about weekends and holidays? If you are home for such short periods a day I wonder why you'd want to be paying thousands a month in rent. Surely you'd be better off putting that money towards your own place where you ate King of your own castle? Or live in a hotel suite it'd be cheaper!

If you want to remain I cannot see it would be £15k to seperate the two systems (it shouldn't need 2 entirely new systems).. Cap off the system to the lower floor, install near boiler, pump electrics to your floor. I'm sure it is more complex than my over simplified comment but I'd have thought a few grand maximum? Why not get a plumber in to quote at least that way you'd be fully armed with the costings to approach the landlord and other tenant.

[Red Devil]

S1MMA said:

I rent a flat in a converted house, house is 4 stories, each floor is a separate apartment.

The house is owned by 2 parties, A and B, who inherited it many years ago. A and B are brother and sister, A owns flat 4 (the flat I rent) B owns flats 1-3. A and B do not get along.

B is a bit of a dictator, what he says goes. It's his house (he is the freeholder) and frankly he seems annoyed that A still owns the top floor apartment. He bought apartment 3 from A many years ago.

These statements are mutually contradictory. What do the Land Registry title document(s) say?

PurpleMoonlight said:

Your Lease with A appears to bind you to pay 50% of the gas costs incurred by B in the supplying heating to both properties. Unless there is a limitation to that cost stated in the Lease, or a written agreement with B supplemental to the Lease, I fear you are stuffed.

He doesn't have a lease. He rents so it will almost certainly be an AST. The terms of the shared heating costs may be unaffected by this though.

PurpleMoonlight said:

S1MMA said:

You haven't answered my questions:

1) I don't understand how it's only one way. Why do I not get a say in this when I pay for half of it?!

2) On that note, I can put my demands to A, pay for what I have demanded, and leave it there? What's the difference?

Your opportunity of discussion was before your signed the Lease, not after.

By all means argue your principle until your landlord decides they have had enough and refuses to renew your AST.

Some arguments are not worth fighting.

If B is a Heat Supplier (which is quite possible imo) then he will have to comply with the legislation - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3120/conte...

As the link posted earlier makes clear it could get quite interesting.

Some landlords and property management companies may find these new arrangement may not sit well with existing tenancy or lease provisions, which stipulate that individual tenants are required to make a pro-rata contribution to heating bills or costs. This is something to bare in mind. It might be that tenanancies and leases will need to be amended in light of these changes.

Underline is mine: the speeling mistakes are not

[PurpleMoonlight]

An AST is a lease.