Dispute over heating - Landlord & tenant

[S1MMA]

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.

[S1MMA]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Guess you missed this bit from the Legislation then:

Citation and commencement
This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum
1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014.

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), these Regulations come into force on 18th December 2014.

(3) Regulation 9 comes into force on 31st December 2014.

(4) Regulations 4(4) and 6 come into force on 31st December 2016.

Regulation 4 (4) is:

(4) Where there is more than one final customer in a building supplied by a district heat network, or by communal heating, the heat supplier must ensure that meters are installed to measure the consumption of heating, cooling or hot water by each final customer.

So as things currently stand the your 'supplier' would appear to not be in breach of the legislation.

Last response to you matey boy, you are conveniently ignoring the responsibilities that he did have which had to be complied with by 31 Dec 2015, read all of the legislation. He is in breach, and if you think he isn't you are posting more bullst and don't know what you are talking about. Again. Like I said, thanks for your comment, but it's all been a load of rubbish and completely wrong, so save it for another time. Ok sweetheart?

Looks like you are just trying to get a reaction from me on this thread, as are some of the other posters who are posting total and utter bullst. I'm happy to hear all opinions and any relevant legislation or other facts, but calling me a sociopath for debating a heating bill and arrangement? Looks like the standard of poster on here really has gone downhill.

[S1MMA]

Just to respond to all above, I totally take your views on board and thanks for responding.

I agree that the best way to go forward is to have a unilateral agreement between all parties, but the reason I just wanted some extra ammo on this topic (the heat network legislation is perfect) is because B was being overly difficult. I suggested we all have a meeting to sort this face to face, and B refused point blank saying there is nothing to discuss. As he and his tenant are getting what they want (despite disputing the bill) he didn't want to compromise. As fate would have it, B emailed me and A yesterday saying that he is now happy to have a meeting to discuss it all and move forward - so hopefully he will be more reasonable. He has had time to stew and think about it - and I'm sure he has realised he is being unreasonable and unfair.

I asked the question because I didn't see a resolution as B had dig his heels in - I appreciate the "more hassle than it's worth" comments, but for me to not be able to control my heating does make it more hassle than it's worth to stay here long term. It's always going to create a problem. If under his obligations under the heat network legislation he needs to sort the system out - then I don't have a problem to stay here.

In terms of the percentage of rent etc, whilst I agree it's small amounts in the scheme of things - you all need to realise that if you feel aggrieved or forced to pay for something that you have not agreed to and are not benefitting from - it still stings to have to pay for it. If you are a stress free easy going type that has multiple direct debits to ransoms for no good reason, I salute you - I'm not so care free and it would annoy me. When it's down to another party that can change or improve the situation then why not engage in some dialogue with them?

Anyway, I think his willingness to now talk and the heat network legislation should be enough for B and A to agree to change the system. Here's hoping anyway.

[S1MMA]

superlightr said:

OP - whats the EPC rating for your property and whats the estimated heating costs that are shown on the EPC?

It's E52 - shows as £625 a year.

[S1MMA]

Steve H said:

I may be mis-estimating numbers here but if this building is worth £25m, each flat, £6m, the rent at just 1% return would be £5k a month.

This leads me to three questions:

1) Do people really pay sixty grand a year just to live in a flat? (essential northerner question)
2) Why would a landlord keep an investment that only returns 1% on capital? (I guess capital growth would explain that in recent years?)
3) Why would the OP be getting his knickers in a twist over an amount that is only around 3% of his monthly rent?

Steve, just to go through your points:

1) there are properties on my road up for £20k a week to rent. People spend obscene amounts of money to rent - it can work out better for them than buying (work out the stamp duty cost alone on a £10m property) they get to live where they want and it's flexible. If you can afford it, why not.

2) it doesn't work that way for most people. Old money - most people that rent out flats this way have inherited these properties that have been in their family for decades, if not more than a century. The house I live in was bought in the early 60's for £23k - and had been with them ever since. so they don't think about yield the same way you or I may do. It's all money for (nearly) nothing for them. It's their shopping money. The people with the liquid wealth to buy these sorts of properties aren't letting out the top 2 floors! Both our neighbors live in the whole house themselves, with basement conversions, swimming pools, all the cars etc. Quite a difference.

3) ok, take 3% of your rent/mortgage and send it over to me. No questions asked. It's a small amount for you - so there should be no problem? If you were short changed in KFC would you just think - it's only a quid - fk it? Only you know the answer to this.

The bottom line is: if this doesn't get fixed I will move, so why not at least try to get a resolution. Learned a bit about some legislation from the good folk on here also so not all bad eh.

[S1MMA]

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.

[S1MMA]

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.

[S1MMA]

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]

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

The exact wording is: "It has been agreed between the parties that the tenant will split the cost equally for the gas central heating with the flat below in addition to the rent".

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.

[S1MMA]

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 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.