Is it me or the landlord?

[buddyfingy]

This is my first thread on aibu, please don't flame me too much!
My DP and I currently rent a one bed flat above a shop. The landlord has his office in the shop so is there a lot, we see him often and do have a generally good relationship (despite him asking us to have the heating at 5 degrees constantly in the winter
This week has been a rather difficult one for a DF of mine. Her boiler has broken with a massive delay on the new parts being installed, her DS was rushed off to hospital in an ambulance with difficulty breathing and has been very poorly, her long lived washing machine has died and her husband was assaulted and needed surgery on a badly broken arm. She has had a dreadful time in short. I offered to help in anyway I could so took home washing to do for her and also let her pop by a few mornings to use the bath for her and her son.
My DP received a text this afternoon from the landlord saying that he doesn't want her doing washing and using the bath and that it is costing him money with her doing that. Fair enough, the rent that we pay is 'all in' but after speaking with him today I cannot understand how he doesn't see it as helping out a friend in need, it is not a regular occurrence and DP has offered to pay him £10 or however much 3 baths and 2 washes. I finished the conversation by saying that I hope if he ever finds himself in a difficult situation that his friends would always support him and not turn him away, which is what he is essentially asking. How could anyone deny a friend with a two year old child basic help like clean clothes and a hot bath?
AIBU and sorry if this is a bit long! Don't want to drop feed.

Glad you got it sorted out OP.

traininthedistance The right to quiet enjoyment etc. is a basic one and contract terms can't override it

Sorry but you are wrong on this. The right to quiet enjoyment does not entitle the tenant to do what they like without being in breach of contract, and only covers the delectus personae of the contract - the parties to the contract. The doctrine of privity of contract also applies. A repudiatory breach of contract bringing into place contractual remedies on the part of the tenant is distinct from a repudiatory breach of contract on the part of the landlord, and both parties can potentially breach the contract.

That sounds a great conversation: assertive without being rude, on your side ("we can't have this happening again"). TBH, both sides will benefit!

Op: Next time you hand over the rent in cash, tell him it would be much more convenient to do an online payment or set up a standing order.
You could make some thing up about not being comfortable carrying £££s round.

This thread reminds me of master & servant scenarios.

Renter - exactly, yes it went a lot better than I had hoped really and with a win win solution! Thank you again to all who commented, I have learned a lot from your comments

Pax - yes I will be doing that next time.

The right to quiet enjoyment does not entitle the tenant to do what they like without being in breach of contract, and only covers the delectus personae of the contract - the parties to the contract. The doctrine of privity of contract also applies. A repudiatory breach of contract bringing into place contractual remedies on the part of the tenant is distinct from a repudiatory breach of contract on the part of the landlord, and both parties can potentially breach the contract.

Eh? Delectus personae isn't really relevant here. Are you confusing this with Scottish law? Statutory tenancy rights don't have any element of the personal: what they mean is that tenants have basic rights in law irrespective of the personal qualities or the personal relationship with a landlord, and if landlords insert unfair clauses into a contract then those clauses are not enforceable. A landlord can put all sorts of unfair terms into a contract and get you to agree to them, but if they contradict your legal rights your legal rights take precedence. If the OP had only a verbal agreement rather than a written tenancy agreement she would still have the right to quiet enjoyment.

People might think the OP is being "unfair" to the landlord but a tenancy agreement is a business contract, not a favour done by one party to the other.

In my experience not all landlords are awful, but many are, especially amateur landlords who are not aware of their legal responsibilities and simply think of property letting as an easy wheeze to make money off those poorer than they are. (Lettings agents are also pretty rubbish in my experience as well - the ones I have dealt with were uniformly unprofessional, rude and incompetent.) I also have had experience renting from friends, and it is not advisable if you can avoid it because of exactly this kind of situation.