Here is a question to the blog clinic from Brian who is a landlord
Last weekend my tenants checked themselves into a hotel because their boiler broke down and parts had to be ordered.
Boiler is now working but tenants want to be reimbursed for hotel bills and food.
Is this normal, do I have to compensate the tenants?
Answer
It depends I suppose on the circumstances but my view is that although they will be entitled to some compensation, they are not entitled to move out and claim hotel costs.
The property is liveable in after all – its not as if it was made uninhabitable for example by fire or flood.
It might be different if the water supply was cut off. Or if the hot water was off for a long time and they had given notice to the landlord first. Or if there were special circumstances, perhaps if they had a medical condition where hot baths were part of the treatment.
However, special circumstances aside, I think most people can live without running hot water for a couple of days. You can always boil water in a kettle or saucepan after all.
There is also the point that these tenants do not appear to have notified or warned the landlord first.
For example the landlord might have been able to rehouse them himself, or investigate his insurance policy to see if they could be covered. However they do not appear to have given him any opportunity.
What do you think? Do you think moving to a hotel if the boiler breaks down is justified?
my view is that although they will be entitled to some compensation
Why? If the landlord has acted promptly and reasonably why are they “entitled” to compo?
An owner occupier would have to put up with such annoying inconveniences, it is part of everyday life.
If there were exceptional delays then it would be a nice gesture for the landlord to give a goodwill payment but I just don’t get the entitlement bit. Do you have any case law to back that up?
It looks like the boiler breakdown was more than just a lack of hot water. I agree with comments about lack of hot water but assuming there was an absence of heating as well I still think its unreasonable of the tenants. Presumably tenants did not cook on the boiler! To protect himself Brian should have provided plug in heaters and time estimate for repair. Maybe some scope for small level of compensation in respect of increased heating costs of plug-ins as opposed to boiler fired central heating but other than that I fail to see how Brian should be held liable (assuming he had the boiler serviced and maintained on a regular basis). BUT devil may be in the detail here – what were the time scales, what sort of contact did Brian have with the Tenants & was he guilty of dragging his feet at any time? This does look like a retaliation on the part of the Tenants but without more detail… Moral here seems to be: deal with problems as soon as they arise and keep tenant fully in the frame.
Tessa,
Genuinely perplexed at your use of the word “entitled” in a case where the landlord has acted reasonably.
The following extract is taken from a book you endorsed;
http://www.lag.org.uk/bookshop/housing/2010/repairs-tenants%27-rights.aspx
“Limitations of s11
1.98 The operation of s11 is circumscribed in a number of ways:
No liability can be imposed on the landlord for breach of s11 until the landlord has knowledge of the defects complained of and fails to effect repairs within a reasonable period of time thereafter”
“BUT devil may be in the detail here”
Yes, indeed. “The boiler broke down” says the landlord, being vague. I see no point speculating, without any more information and detail to go on. Pointless.
We keep 3 or 4 electric plug in heaters handy. So if a tenant rings with boiler / heating problems we can suppy them with the heaters till the problem is fixed.
Also we do not have combi boilers so they can always get hot water via the emersion heater.
Answer here is easy Morris v Liverpool City Council 1988 – a week is not an unreasonable time within which to effect a repair.
Depends on exact circumstances – baby or great granny living there, time of year, was all hot water lost etc etc.
Above all is it a dicky boiler that has been playing up for some time?
And did the tenant advise or just decamp?
Anyway no entitlement to vacate without penalty, but compensation due because tenant has not had all that they were paying for during the whole period of occupancy (or not as the case may be!!)
Julie
Out of interest do you know just how much typical daily use of an immersion heater costs?
I can advise you that a cheap B&B might be more economical – and the landlord would need to compensate for the increased bill through his standard system not working as it should.
By the way Tessa does 1.98 in the book link you quote now look dodgy in the light of Edwards and the outside path to the flat?
@Industry Observer and @HB Welcome – IO, yes the interpretation of s11 has changed now in the light of this case http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/02/03/new-court-of-appeal-decision-makes-landlords-and-agents-repairing-obligations-more-onerous/
Re compensation, if the tenant were to go to court to claim compensation in this case I suspect he would get something but probably not very much. However he is not entitled to ANYTHING unless and until a Judge has heard the case, or he has reached agreement with the landlord.
I don’t see how the Edwards case makes any difference to a tenant becoming entitled to compensation for boiler repairs if they had been carried out within a reasonable period of time.
Regarding scale of compensation, the following may be of interest- for those that way inclined!
(Picked at random. I make no comment whether they were fair awards or not);
Grand v Gill, 2011
Mother and daughter, boiler not working at all for 207 days. Awarded £1,750.
Taylor v Kowsley, 1985
Local authority tenant, a young healthy single man, awarded £100 for no hot water for five months. (about £250 in today’s money)
http://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/learning-faqs/case-studies/case-study-49-delays-in-repairing-boiler-and-poor-customer-service/#.VO2q_PmsXfg
Ms H complained about how her landlord dealt with repairs to her boiler that left her without heating and hot water for six days. Ms H is a disabled person who is largely housebound.
-£100 agreed compensation.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1166.html
All those cases involved social tenants so the awards were comparable to what they were actually paying.
One thing the tenants are sure not to gain, is the renewal of their contract. Better communication is the key after all for both sides.
Just to give you a tenants perspective on this. I believe, a compensation is not always unreasonable, and a week without heating and hot water can be too long!
I was living in a property, where the boiler broke down at least twice a year. Alas, the first weekend, where outside temperatures reached -4*C, our boiler broke down. It was on a Friday evening before a bank holiday weekend, so it took them until the monday after to fix the boiler (ordering spare parts etc.) – so they did all they could to fix it in a reasonable timeframe.
However, after a day, indoor temperatures reached 3*C during the day (that is colder than your average fridge). We did buy an electric heater, but because the house is so poorly insulated, it never got any warmer than 8*C. However, we could not afford a hotel additional to our rent, and our landlord threatened to cancel the contract with immediate effect, if we held back the rent.
I was 6 months pregnant at the time, and due to the constant cold and the stress involved – I had to be hospitalised!
So, yes – one week can be too long to repair a boiler and yes – tenants pay for your mortgage (and not their own), so it is unreasonable to expect them to put up with the same “inconveniences”, when owning a house!!