Dispute over heating - Landlord & tenant
Discussion
BobSaunders said:
OP - i agree with you. Why should you have to pay for something if you do not use it or need it?
There appears to be a belief on here that if you can afford it, you should suck it up and pay for it
No, there's a belief that if he signed a contract agreeing to pay it, he needs to pay it.There appears to be a belief on here that if you can afford it, you should suck it up and pay for it
S1MMA said:
Red Devil said:
These statements are mutually contradictory. What do the Land Registry title document(s) say?
You are quite right, I should have said the apartments are owned by 2 parties. I believe B is the freeholder, but I've not seen the land registry document, it's only what I have been told by the previous tenant.If you need to, it will cost you the magnificent sum of £3 for each flat (3 & 4). https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/port...
Thar legislation is interesting. Plenty of get outs though if not technically or economically viable.
From a memory, assuming that this is an AST, the landlord must ensure that one room has heating, and hot water.
I can see why OP feel's that this the 50/50 is unfair - but this was there to be caught in the agreement. Again on first reading it seems fair - until the current position
I'm not convinced that the legislation gives the OP the protection that he thinks - but best of luck and please keep us updated.
From a memory, assuming that this is an AST, the landlord must ensure that one room has heating, and hot water.
I can see why OP feel's that this the 50/50 is unfair - but this was there to be caught in the agreement. Again on first reading it seems fair - until the current position
I'm not convinced that the legislation gives the OP the protection that he thinks - but best of luck and please keep us updated.
Ekona said:
True, but you HAVE USE of the building for 24/7, just like the bloke downstairs. At least, I assume you do. Please enlighten me if that's not the case.
The way I see it, your personal circumstances are just that: Personal. What if you happen to be at home during the week, let's say you break your leg next week and we suddenly get a cold snap. Would you then be volunteering to pay more of the bill as you're at home with the heating on during the day then? Or do you want it both ways?
This is absolutely the crux of the matter. The way I see it, your personal circumstances are just that: Personal. What if you happen to be at home during the week, let's say you break your leg next week and we suddenly get a cold snap. Would you then be volunteering to pay more of the bill as you're at home with the heating on during the day then? Or do you want it both ways?
Why can't you see that?
Do you pay less rent because you are at home less? Of course not
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?
How do you make allowances for that?
Drawweight said:
Ekona said:
True, but you HAVE USE of the building for 24/7, just like the bloke downstairs. At least, I assume you do. Please enlighten me if that's not the case.
The way I see it, your personal circumstances are just that: Personal. What if you happen to be at home during the week, let's say you break your leg next week and we suddenly get a cold snap. Would you then be volunteering to pay more of the bill as you're at home with the heating on during the day then? Or do you want it both ways?
This is absolutely the crux of the matter. The way I see it, your personal circumstances are just that: Personal. What if you happen to be at home during the week, let's say you break your leg next week and we suddenly get a cold snap. Would you then be volunteering to pay more of the bill as you're at home with the heating on during the day then? Or do you want it both ways?
Why can't you see that?
Do you pay less rent because you are at home less? Of course not
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:
Ekona said:
The agreement doesn't seem remotely unfair to me. Half the size property, half the bill. How is that unfair?
Because I'm not in the building from 8am - 6pm, when the heating is on, so why should I pay for it. How is that so complicated to understand?Looks like we are on repeat here, some of you need to READ the thread before responding.
Say two people owned a car, person A uses the car to go to work and back. Round trip 30 miles, one gallon of petrol, £5. (Just a rough example don't get all PH saying petrol is only £4.99 around here and I only travel 29 miles).
Person B collects the car from A and uses it as a taxi at night. Should A fill the car up every night for B? No, A uses what petrol he needs and B uses what he needs.
everyeggabird said:
I am with you OP 100%.
Say two people owned a car, person A uses the car to go to work and back. Round trip 30 miles, one gallon of petrol, £5. (Just a rough example don't get all PH saying petrol is only £4.99 around here and I only travel 29 miles).
Person B collects the car from A and uses it as a taxi at night. Should A fill the car up every night for B? No, A uses what petrol he needs and B uses what he needs.
Correct,Say two people owned a car, person A uses the car to go to work and back. Round trip 30 miles, one gallon of petrol, £5. (Just a rough example don't get all PH saying petrol is only £4.99 around here and I only travel 29 miles).
Person B collects the car from A and uses it as a taxi at night. Should A fill the car up every night for B? No, A uses what petrol he needs and B uses what he needs.
Unless, of course, person A has previously signed a contract with Person B agreeing that they will share the fuel bill of this car 50:50 regardless of how much they each use...........
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.
A lot of people think it but that doesn't make it true.In fact it is simply incorrect.
grimmac said:
everyeggabird said:
I am with you OP 100%.
Say two people owned a car, person A uses the car to go to work and back. Round trip 30 miles, one gallon of petrol, £5. (Just a rough example don't get all PH saying petrol is only £4.99 around here and I only travel 29 miles).
Person B collects the car from A and uses it as a taxi at night. Should A fill the car up every night for B? No, A uses what petrol he needs and B uses what he needs.
Correct,Say two people owned a car, person A uses the car to go to work and back. Round trip 30 miles, one gallon of petrol, £5. (Just a rough example don't get all PH saying petrol is only £4.99 around here and I only travel 29 miles).
Person B collects the car from A and uses it as a taxi at night. Should A fill the car up every night for B? No, A uses what petrol he needs and B uses what he needs.
Unless, of course, person A has previously signed a contract with Person B agreeing that they will share the fuel bill of this car 50:50 regardless of how much they each use...........
Is it fair? No
However, you signed a contract when you moved in saying heating bills to be split 50/50 so you're liable for half the bill.
Either get a new contract sorted and signed or move out/deal with it unfortunately.
I don't know how the OP can say they didn't know anything about the situation. You had a clause in your AST saying you pay half the bill!
Your on the hook for 50% of whatever the bill is regardless of whether a&b got and increased the heating times. You agreement offers no protection against this.
ask for copies of the bills to check and pay up.
Your on the hook for 50% of whatever the bill is regardless of whether a&b got and increased the heating times. You agreement offers no protection against this.
ask for copies of the bills to check and pay up.
Likewise, are they on the hook for 50% of your heating costs...? With no seemingly acceptable solution forthcoming from either landlord, I'd be turning the heating on all the time. At which point your neighbour may be more willing to work together to find a solution since, at the moment, the problem is all yours.
Does it really add that much to the bill if the heating is on all day? The boiler only has to "top up" the heat, rather than heating the whole thing from cold twice a day. You might be stressing out over nothing. Unless the bill has increased massively you could just enjoy the warmth when you get home every day.
S1MMA said:
AyBee said:
The only way you can deal with this is by reaching a solution with tenant 3. It would seem fair that you only pay for 4/19th of the bill and he pays 15/19ths, but unfortunately you're contractually obliged to pay half. This would have rung alarm bells with me when signing the contract but that's easy to say in hindsight.
You live and you learn, this is the 2nd AST for this property, I've lived there just over a year. In the first year there was a different arrangement for the heating, and the cost was not built in to the contract, this has now changed and the first bill has arrived which is why this has kicked off.The downstairs tenant will not agree to pay £500 heating bills per 2 months, but as said above that's between them and their landlord. I will certainly not pay for something that I have not agreed on.
Appreciate all the views, but most of it is conjecture. None of you know whether the contract will stand up in front of a court the way it is worded, so I do not agree that I should blindly pay up.
Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, i.e. would it be fair to ask a tenant to pay half the heating cost when they have no say, control or input on heating times, and with the verbal agreement of 4 hours a day, I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute. I am not a Solicitor with specialization in landlord and tenant matters, if anyone on here is and has a view then please give it. Armchair experts, thanks for your views but that's all they are.
If the landlord(s) are found to be in breach of the heat networks legislation then this is a completely different argument.
That's where I am at the moment, and I will update when I have a more solid view.
Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, i.e. would it be fair to ask a tenant to pay half the heating cost when they have no say, control or input on heating times, and with the verbal agreement of 4 hours a day, I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute. I am not a Solicitor with specialization in landlord and tenant matters, if anyone on here is and has a view then please give it. Armchair experts, thanks for your views but that's all they are.
If the landlord(s) are found to be in breach of the heat networks legislation then this is a completely different argument.
That's where I am at the moment, and I will update when I have a more solid view.
S1MMA said:
None of you know whether the contract will stand up in front of a court the way it is worded, so I do not agree that I should blindly pay up.
Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, ... I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute.
That's where I am at the moment, and I will update when I have a more solid view.
Go fer it.Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, ... I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute.
That's where I am at the moment, and I will update when I have a more solid view.
I did suggest exactly that back on the last page, four days ago, but...
TooMany2cvs said:
Look, S1MMA - if you think the contract's unfair, then take it to court. If the judge agrees with you, then the contract was unfair.
Until that point, you are contractually obliged to pay half.
Your decision.
Until that point, you are contractually obliged to pay half.
Your decision.
S1MMA said:
Appreciate all the views, but most of it is conjecture. None of you know whether the contract will stand up in front of a court the way it is worded, so I do not agree that I should blindly pay up.
Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, i.e. would it be fair to ask a tenant to pay half the heating cost when they have no say, control or input on heating times, and with the verbal agreement of 4 hours a day, I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute. I am not a Solicitor with specialization in landlord and tenant matters, if anyone on here is and has a view then please give it. Armchair experts, thanks for your views but that's all they are.
If the landlord(s) are found to be in breach of the heat networks legislation then this is a completely different argument.
That's where I am at the moment, and I will update when I have a more solid view.
I suspect your contract allows for 50% of the total bill, not the amount that you have used. I suspect you are on a road to nowhere, but it seems you don't want to hear opinions other than those that work for you so best of luck.Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, i.e. would it be fair to ask a tenant to pay half the heating cost when they have no say, control or input on heating times, and with the verbal agreement of 4 hours a day, I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute. I am not a Solicitor with specialization in landlord and tenant matters, if anyone on here is and has a view then please give it. Armchair experts, thanks for your views but that's all they are.
If the landlord(s) are found to be in breach of the heat networks legislation then this is a completely different argument.
That's where I am at the moment, and I will update when I have a more solid view.
S1MMA said:
Appreciate all the views, but most of it is conjecture. None of you know whether the contract will stand up in front of a court the way it is worded, so I do not agree that I should blindly pay up.
Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, i.e. would it be fair to ask a tenant to pay half the heating cost when they have no say, control or input on heating times, and with the verbal agreement of 4 hours a day, I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute. I am not a Solicitor with specialization in landlord and tenant matters, if anyone on here is and has a view then please give it. Armchair experts, thanks for your views but that's all they are..
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer.Until I have a legal view on the contract wording being fair, i.e. would it be fair to ask a tenant to pay half the heating cost when they have no say, control or input on heating times, and with the verbal agreement of 4 hours a day, I can't say whether I do technically have to pay up without question or not. If the legal view is that it is not unfair, then I have little argument to dispute. I am not a Solicitor with specialization in landlord and tenant matters, if anyone on here is and has a view then please give it. Armchair experts, thanks for your views but that's all they are..
Ignore the legalities for one second and the armchair lawyer views or indeed any real lawyers.
Take a step back and play out the scenarios.
1) You "win" and they agree to install some additional equipment at significant cost to them.
2) You "don't win" and you are stuck where you are.
In scenarios 1 & 2 you are likely to be subject to:
a) a rent review at their earliest opportunity as they will want to recover either heating costs or legal fees, or both. From you.
b) served notice as they figure they can get a higher rent for less hassle. the costs of heating that you outlined in the winter will be accepted by many renters.
Potential outcome - you have to move with both new higher rental fees, moving costs and time burden that outweigh any of your current imbalance. After all, you have no "right" to rent that property at the current cost or terms beyond your current agreement. A formal battle could take months.
To often people get focused on the legalities and massively lose sight of the bigger picture and outcomes. Pragmatism is normally more efficient and better for your sanity than winning the battle but losing the war.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff