Washing machine - who is responsible, landlord or tenant?

K.Flyer

iguana wrote: »

Where? All the OP says about the rent is that it hasn't been increased in 2.5 years...

Correct and who is to say that the rent was not already on the high side from the outset.
It was a presumption of some of the earlier posters, based with no knowledge of location, circumstances or facts, that the rent was well below market rates and should be increased.
Funnily enough after all this, we have heard nothing from from the O.P. since their first post with the question "..who is responsible for the washing machine?"

foggy_lad

murphaph wrote: »

It's naïve in the extreme to think a tenant on a sweet deal won't be raising their head above the parapet when requesting repairs like this to be carried out. The tenant has been foolish here. Should have realised a washing machine repair would have cost maybe 1 month's difference between his current tent and what he could be asked to pay according to market rates. Now he stands to lose a large multiple of that as his landlord simply adjusts the rent to the market rate.

Tenants have no problem requesting reductions when the market falls. It cuts both ways.

So raise the rent and lose a good tenant, possibly wait a couple of months for a new tenant who appears all professional to start but leaves in a years time after destroying the property and owing thousands in rent. or go from having a long term good tenant to short term lets with gaps where no rent is coming from the property. How will these scenarios help the Landlord pay their mortgage?

Grolschevik

OP's post history indicates she's based in Athlone and that her previous tenants were problematic with regard to rent payment.

This tells us nothing about where her rental property is, of course, but it does indicate that she has had experience of 'bad tenants'

murphaph

Yeah ok, I made an assumption that the OP's claims that the rent hasn't been raised was strongly hinting that the rent is currently below market rate. It's up to the OP to decide if the rent is well below market rate and to act accordingly. If it isn't below market rates then it'll have to stay where it is of course.

Landlords are castigated as cowboys for increasing to market rates but tenants who request reductions in bad times are not called "cowboy tenants" are they. Double standards there.

beauf

Can we not just discuss the issue at hand rather than make it another generic venting thread.

Grolschevik

beauf wrote: »

Can we not just discuss the issue at hand rather than make it another generic venting thread.

The issue at hand was answered within the first five posts!

Ogham

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Who's gonna be responsible for water charges, tenant or landlord ?

Officially - it's the "occupier" .. but unless provided with proof of another occupier - Irish Water will assume the owner is the occupier.

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/water-charges-who-will-pay-them.html

murphaph

beauf wrote: »

Can we not just discuss the issue at hand rather than make it another generic venting thread.

The issue at hand is clear. The LL is legally responsible for repairing/replacing the washing machine. The thread has developed organically since then

athtrasna

murphaph wrote: »

The issue at hand is clear. The LL is legally responsible for repairing/replacing the washing machine. The thread has developed organically since then

Largely because the OP hasn't posted again in the thread I'd imagine

weisses

athtrasna wrote: »

Largely because the OP hasn't posted again in the thread I'd imagine

No mainly to do with people drawing conclusions based on wrong assumptions.

And the reaction OP got from some I'm not surprised she didn't reply.

sligoface

When you rent a house with a washing machine you are renting the washing machine, so why would you pay for it to be repaired when it belongs to the landlord?

What if it needed to be replaced? Would the LLs advocating for tenant to repair be okay with a tenant replacing it and not telling them and then taking it with them when they move. Because then you would have an empty property and have to buy a washing machine to boot before you could get another tenant in.

murphaph

sligoface wrote: »

When you rent a house with a washing machine you are renting the washing machine, so why would you pay for it to be repaired when it belongs to the landlord?

What if it needed to be replaced? Would the LLs advocating for tenant to repair be okay with a tenant replacing it and not telling them and then taking it with them when they move. Because then you would have an empty property and have to buy a washing machine to boot before you could get another tenant in.

Legally it's the LL's responsibility to fix or replace a washing machine that's been provided. HOWEVER if I was a tenant in a property with a market value say 200 a month (2400 a year!!) higher than I was paying, I'd be doing everything I could not to draw attention to myself, for fear of the LL simply invoking his right to adjust the rent to the market rate.

If you were a tenant in a place for a couple of years and were paying 2,400 a year less than the going rate, would you be on the phone asking your LL to fix the washing machine or would you call a repairman yourself and hope it's fixable for a hundred quid or worst case scenario you buy a new one yourself?

It's not about the letter of the law here because according to the letter of the law the LL is 100% responsible for the repair, but according to the same law he is entitled to adjust the rent to reflect the current market rates once every 12 months. If everyone follows the letter of the law, the tenant loses out. It's really biting off your nose to spite your face stuff.

beauf

... and break the conditions of their tenancy

"Inform the landlord if repairs are needed..."

sligoface

murphaph wrote: »

Legally it's the LL's responsibility to fix or replace a washing machine that's been provided. HOWEVER if I was a tenant in a property with a market value say 200 a month (2400 a year!!) higher than I was paying, I'd be doing everything I could not to draw attention to myself, for fear of the LL simply invoking his right to adjust the rent to the market rate.

If you were a tenant in a place for a couple of years and were paying 2,400 a year less than the going rate, would you be on the phone asking your LL to fix the washing machine or would you call a repairman yourself and hope it's fixable for a hundred quid or worst case scenario you buy a new one yourself?

It's not about the letter of the law here because according to the letter of the law the LL is 100% responsible for the repair, but according to the same law he is entitled to adjust the rent to reflect the current market rates once every 12 months. If everyone follows the letter of the law, the tenant loses out. It's really biting off your nose to spite your face stuff.

So calling your landlord because the washing machine broke is 'drawing attention to yourself'? Ridiculous. That's standard procedure.

I ask again, what do the tenants do with the old machine in this scenario and would you as a landlord, be happy to have them take the washing machine they bought as a replacement with them when they go, leaving you to have to replace the washing machine then? You probably wouldn't, and would be saying, where's my washing machine, I want it back or it's coming out of your deposit.

Just because you're not squeezing every possible penny out of a tenant with their rate of rent does not mean a tenant should have to replace items that were present and working at the time the rent was agreed and have broken down due to normal usage over time. I'd say raising the rent on a good tenant who you might lose as a result due to being petty about having to fix a poxy washing machine is more akin to biting your nose off to spite your face.

If I felt like I had to do all repairs and maintenance myself because I was afraid of my rent being raised, I would move.

murphaph

I'm just telling you the reality. You can wish it was different and that landlords of tenants on preferential rates don't feel that one thing has anything to do with the other but that's just not the reality. The landlord won't even say "your rent is being adjusted to market rates because of that washing machine". He'll just wait a month or two and raise it as a matter of course. He might raise it but still maintain it 50 quid below market rates so the tenant would be mad to leave for a more expensive property.

What people don't seem to understand is that the repair cost will be borne by the tenant one way or the other. Costs get passed on as they do in every business.

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

I'm just telling you the reality. You can wish it was different and that landlords of tenants on preferential rates don't feel that one thing has anything to do with the other but that's just not the reality. The landlord won't even say "your rent is being adjusted to market rates because of that washing machine". He'll just wait a month or two and raise it as a matter of course. He might raise it but still maintain it 50 quid below market rates so the tenant would be mad to leave for a more expensive property.

What people don't seem to understand is that the repair cost will be borne by the tenant one way or the other. Costs get passed on as they do in every business.

By your own admission the OP still hasn't confirmed your assumption that the tenants are paying below market rates.

I would expect that any sensible landlord has already taken into account occasional repair costs when setting the original rent. By following your logic, every time a train breaks down, Irish Rail would put the fares up. Every time a chair gets broken in a pub the cost of a pint would rise.

beauf

If tenant's ring murphy with a problem. He puts the rent up.

murphaph

Graham wrote: »

By your own admission the OP still hasn't confirmed your assumption that the tenants are paying below market rates.

I would expect that any sensible landlord has already taken into account occasional repair costs when setting the original rent. By following your logic, every time a train breaks down, Irish Rail would put the fares up. Every time a chair gets broken in a pub the cost of a pint would rise.

I'm not talking about the op anymore. The discussion has moved on to more general terms.

The rent doesn't remain static. It must be adjusted periodically to bring it into line with current rates.

Irish rail etc. do put their prices up to reflect their maintenance and other costs. Just like any other business if the market will tolerate, which it will if the price is currently below average.

Tar.Aldarion

Maybe it should be, in a decade renting my rent has never changed from that on the lease in the beginning. How common do people find it happens to them?

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not talking about the op anymore. The discussion has moved on to more general terms.

The rent doesn't remain static. It must be adjusted periodically to bring it into line with current rates.

Irish rail etc. do put their prices up to reflect their maintenance and other costs. Just like any other business if the market will tolerate, which it will if the price is currently below average.

Are you suggesting Irish Rail make no provision in their financial planning for maintenance? That they must put up the ticket prices each time a train breaks down?

I would expect most successful businesses to anticipate maintenance costs in advance and factor them into their pricing, being a landlord is no different. If you have to adjust your pricing on the fly to cover relatively minor maintenance costs, I'd suggest you're doing something wrong.

murphaph

Graham wrote: »

Are you suggesting Irish Rail make no provision in their financial planning for maintenance? That they must put up the ticket prices each time a train breaks down?

No you misunderstand. It's not about need.

Irish rail (or any company-Irish Rail is a bad example as they will be bailed out by the taxpayer if/when they get it wrong) will review their cost base (be that maintenance, or whatever) and will then add those costs to their end prices, to ensure a profit is made...if the current market conditions will tolerate it.

Large companies will not trigger increasing prices based on individual events, but small-time landlords with a few properties will be much closer to the coalface and will. A large company will seek to make a certain profit and that profit will be eroded by increased maintenance costs, so if the market will tolerate it (and only if the market will tolerate it, except in the case of anomalies like Irish Rail) you will see that company increasing its prices to maintain its profitability.

Lidl won't increase their prices because a vandal broke one window. But Lidl WILL increase their prices when all their costs are added up and analysis reveals their profitability is falling (perhaps influenced by a few vandals breaking a few windows). So, the more maintenance Lidl has to perform, the more their goods will cost to the consumer.

Graham wrote: »

I would expect most successful businesses to anticipate maintenance costs in advance and factor them into their pricing, being a landlord is no different. If you have to adjust your pricing on the fly to cover relatively minor maintenance costs, I'd suggest you're doing something wrong.

It's not as black and white as that. First of all, the state doesn't even allow landlords to deduct all their business costs when calculating net profit (only 75% of mortgage interest relief is allowed, yet a company that buys a machine with a loan can deduct 100%). The NPPR, HH and now the Property Tax are not allowed either, but are clearly costs of doing business. Rates on commercial property are allowed (if the LL pays them himself), so that's clearly anomalous.

So, the state doesn't actually treat landlords like other businesses for tax purposes for whatever reason (I own property in Germany btw and can confirm that a LL in Germany can deduct a whole host of things an Irish landlord could only dream about, including reasonable expenses incurred in inspecting the property a couple of times a year, even if that means plane tickets )

Anyway, as I said it's not a black and white thing. We're not talking about "needing" to adjust rents on the fly. It's not about need at all in most cases. Lidl doesn't "need" to be as profitable as it is: the Schwarz family are already billionaires several times over and have no shareholders to answer to, they just "want" to be as profitable as possible. A LL who has a few properties will have his attention drawn to someone who requests repairs. The LL is then quite likely to have a quick look and see if the current rate is appropriate and adjust up to market rate if there's scope to do so. Though a clever LL with a tenant he's happy enough with will not push it right up to market value but maybe leave it a bit below, to leave no incentive for the tenant to move.

Basically your comparison above was a bit silly. A small time LL like me with a few properties is not a large company. He has close contact to the figures and the costs and can react much more quickly than a large organisation. He doesn't need to react to a washing machine repair but if he's been doing the tenant a favour by charging him 200 quid a month under market rate (a tenant paying top rate PAYE would have to earn another ca. €5k to pay that difference!!) then drawing attention to yourself by requesting repairs is probably not a good idea as it may cause the good will of the LL to simply evaporate. He doesn't need to increase the rent to market rates, you've just pissed him off and he can.

Similarly in bad times a tenant can request rent decreases if the LL isn't around each week mowing the lawn.

To be honest the digs from beauf aren't worth responding to. I only have 1 residential property in Ireland (rest is light industrial, so tenants on FRI leases as a matter of course) and I have been doing my quiet as a mouse tenants a favour for the last few years. I strongly suspect the husband has fixed several little things as he's handy and so I continue doing them a favour. I have one residential property in Germany and as is usual in Germany there's a "small repairs clause" in the lease, so the tenant is liable for up to €410 worth of repairs each year).

niallb

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Maybe it should be, in a decade renting my rent has never changed from that on the lease in the beginning. How common do people find it happens to them?

Likewise. I've ben renting the same house for 11 years with only one change in rent halfway through. That change was in my favour and reflected that some land with the property was no longer available to us.

Milly33

Don't be doing crap like uping the rent just because they have asked you to fix stuff. Good tenants are hard to find, they could just leave everything go to crap and not tell you but they are so don't take them for granted, just as you wish they don't take you for granted

beauf

Likewise if you encourage tenants to ignore the LL when it comes to repairs you can find your probably badly painted, rewired and re-plumbed, requiring a lot of expense to get get fixed and checked. or good quality fixtures and fitting replaced with inferior replacements. Never mind its broken their contract/lease and cause all sorts of disputes afterwards. Being unprofessional is fine until its bite you back, then suddenly everyone is looking up the regulations and contracts that they ignored up to that point.

cerastes

murphaph wrote: »

To be honest the digs from beauf aren't worth responding to. I only have 1 residential property in Ireland (rest is light industrial, so tenants on FRI leases as a matter of course) and I have been doing my quiet as a mouse tenants a favour for the last few years. I strongly suspect the husband has fixed several little things as he's handy and so I continue doing them a favour. I have one residential property in Germany and as is usual in Germany there's a "small repairs clause" in the lease, so the tenant is liable for up to €410 worth of repairs each year).

Ive never heard of such a thing in Ireland, Im sure it doesnt exist for residential property, maybe commercial?

It seems the idea of unfurnished here has fallen on deaf ears, what Im trying to find out is, is it even allowed? given regulations state landlord has to provide certain items.

Are there variations of this in Germany? ie completely unfurnished, white goods only, something else?

Providing microwaves, kettles and toasters is kind of silly, not based on their value, why would it not benefit a tenant to use their own stuff? be allowed to paint properties to a good standard if they want, return to white/magnolia or whatever it was before they leave.
No complaints of crappy beds. sofas, disputes over damage to items

Electric Sheep

I would not rent from a landlord whose idea of a good tenant was someone who "keeps their head down". That sounds rather threatening.

murphaph

cerastes wrote: »

Ive never heard of such a thing in Ireland, Im sure it doesnt exist for residential property, maybe commercial?

For commercial leases it's usually FRI (full repairing and insuring). The LL is usually only liable for maintaining the structure of the building, not the plumbing or wiring etc. inside.

cerastes wrote: »

It seems the idea of unfurnished here has fallen on deaf ears, what Im trying to find out is, is it even allowed? given regulations state landlord has to provide certain items.

Completely bare a la the German model isn't allowed because of the nanny state laws we have in Ireland. You must provide that fridge freezer...even if your tenant has a much nicer one he wants to use himself.

cerastes wrote: »

Are there variations of this in Germany? ie completely unfurnished, white goods only, something else?

In Germany a LL and tenant (like grown ups) can decide between them what will be provided. From luxury fully furnished with towels and bed linen changed down to a bare flat without so much as the light fittings, never mind a kitchen.

cerastes wrote: »

Providing microwaves, kettles and toasters is kind of silly, not based on their value, why would it not benefit a tenant to use their own stuff? be allowed to paint properties to a good standard if they want, return to white/magnolia or whatever it was before they leave.
No complaints of crappy beds. sofas, disputes over damage to items

Yep, I agree.

I also agree with rent controls for existing tenants (that'll shock some of the posters on here making digs I bet!) with the LL remaining free to set the rate at whatever he likes when creating a new tenancy. I think sensible rent control for sitting tenants is a cornerstone of making renting long term an option. But ONLY with an overhaul of the eviction procedures to be able to remove delinquent tenants in a few weeks max.

vevo

beauf wrote: »

If tenant's ring murphy with a problem. He puts the rent up.

Operant conditioning

Managespaces

I think it is responsibility of landlord..

cerastes

murphaph wrote: »

I also agree with rent controls for existing tenants (that'll shock some of the posters on here making digs I bet!) with the LL remaining free to set the rate at whatever he likes when creating a new tenancy. I think sensible rent control for sitting tenants is a cornerstone of making renting long term an option. But ONLY with an overhaul of the eviction procedures to be able to remove delinquent tenants in a few weeks max.

What do you mean rent controls for existing tenants? (but not for, people who may yet become tenants?).
And then you say with the landlord free to set the rent for a new tenancy?
Isn't rent control a limit on setting the rent?

Does rent control prevent drops and increases? for only some people? social welfare? or maybe people with unions behind them? or everyone?

How can rent control (eg a reduced amount) for an existing tenant be implemented/enforced? if say the market is asking for more? or where you say so many costs are not allowed to be offset against tax?

Im saying this as a person renting one house to a tenant under market rate, for a few reasons, but I cant keep that going forever, at the point they leave, I'll have to up the rent to whats being asked elsewhere as reductions were made over years on the basis rents fell and the only reason Ive kept them despite some problems (they havent always been good) is I know what they are like and how to deal with them, a new entity at this stage would be no help to me.