Landlord refusing to pay for repairs

[BuckyBuck]

We’re in the process of buying our rented home.
It’s liveable but definitely a fixer upper.
The other day, the base units of the kitchen collapsed and we told LL about it. He however refused to pay because by telling us he could pay but then add it to the property price.

I’m concerned in the unlikely event that it falls through, we’ll be stuck with the cost.

We’re happy to pay for repairs here and there, but this was more than a couple of hundred quid so I feel he should pay.

I obviously don’t want to rock the boat but want fair treatment too.

I should add that he increased the price by adding on certain costs after originally agreeing a price

Can you buy somewhere else?

Sounds very complicated, what with you technically still being in a rental & the landlord having obligstions under that, yet also half way through buying process on the same house!
To be honest, aside from trying to agree something informal with the landlord, I don't think you will get anywhere.

It sounds as if he feels that the price of the house reflects the fact that it's a bit of a project and needs some work.

Isn't that what he means when he says that he could do the repairs but would have to increase the price of the house?

Any house you buy could have unseen issues. At least your know what yours are. If you feel that you're paying a fair price, I wouldn't rock the boat. He's not going to be interested in general maintenance when you're close to exchange.

I think it's fair. You don't put an offer on a house and expect the vendor to pay for repairs. YABU. Wait until the sale has gone through and then pay for the repairs yourself.

Once you start the process of buying a council house, they inform you that they will not carry out any repairs, as i guess people could take the piss by deliberately breaking stuff in order to get a free upgrade before completion.

We’ve already done the repairs. The stand of the base units were so rotten, it collapsed. We’d have to store our stuff in the dining room whilst awaiting the sale to be completed.

It seems unfair to still be paying rent whilst he gets to shirk his responsibilities.
The major still like new bathroom, kitchen, rewiring, we’re waiting for the sale to carry out.

As you are still paying rent, he should absolutely be fulfilling his contractural obligations to fix the manky, broken cupboards that he hasn't maintained or replaced previously despite the need.
Do you really want and need to buy this house? Have you got it for an excellent price? I would pull out if not.

How long have you rented the house for?
Our contract has a specific clause about the LL not being liable for "wear and tear" repairs after 12 months. Which tbf, seems fair enough to me. We lived in our last place for 15 years. I'd have been taking the piss big time to expect him to re-do my kitchen cupboards after all that time!
I appreciate it's a grey area but I think pp has it right. If you were buying a different house, you might ask for a reduction because of wear and tear already there. But when you've caused that wear and tear, it's CFery.

I'm a landlord and I disagree. Wear and tear is part of life. Things don't last forever.

If I've got a good tenant, that pays their rent on-time and treats the property with respect, I'm not going to complain about replacing/repairing things that have reached the end of their useful life.

The landlord in this scenario should have kept on top of the maintenance and proactively replaced the kitchen.

A word of warning to the OP. If the kitchen units are rotten, it means they are, or have been, wet for a very prolonged period of time. If they're rotten, the floorboards and floor joists are probably rotten and riddled with woodworm. You could be buying a major problem.

Is there an ongoing leak? If so, why haven't you reported that to the landlord?

This sounds like one of the rent to buy scams. I hope you have taken good legal advice on this, because there are a lot of them about.

I see nothing CFery about expecting a landlord who is being paid rent to do repairs. Wear and tear is the landlords responsibility, and if tenants are putting in things like carpets, kitcehn cupboards and other fixtures then the landlaord has seen them coming. I seriously doubt a tenancy agreement that says the landlaord is not responsible for wear and tear on their own property is lawful. The only exception would be if the tenant had put fixtures in at their own expense.

Honestly, I’d let this one go and move forward with the sale. The kitchen units obviously replacing completely and you’ll presumably redo the kitchen to your taste at some point in the future.

Yes, it’s unfair, but presumably you’re buying the house at a reduced price as your existing tenants? I’d get the sale completed ASAP and start fixing up your home.

If it was the boiler, I’d say the opposite, but it’s not worth it for some manky cabinets.

I dunno, by the letter of the law he's still your landlord with obligations, but if he was selling the house to anyone else he'd have given notice/evicted you by now and the cupboards would be the buyer's problem. You're in that grey area where you're the buyer now and indeed you've replaced the cupboards already with the ones you want as the new owners, so I can see why he's not coughing up. From his pov, what's the worst that can happen? You're not going to sue him. And you admit your worst case scenario is very unlikely to happen and if it did, some cupboards would be the least of your problems. I'd say it was different if it was a broken boiler emergency, but cupboard attrition is a very long game and he's fair to think they could've lasted till you'd exchanged. Indeed surely they can't all have collapsed at once so more likely you've just got the jump on replacing some of your kitchen. You'll be fixing up stuff when it's your home all the time so I'd just see this as the start of it and suck it up.

Re. A PP mentioning a leak/damp causing the rotten cabinets. You’ve had a full survey, right? Definitely don’t skimp on that just because you’ve lived in the house.

It may simply be that the cabinets are old and cheap. When we bought our house, our kitchen had cabinets dating from the early 1980’s and they were literally crumbling. I barely used them until we had the kitchen redone, they were manky chipboard that crumbled when you touched it. 🤢

Why is it taking the piss to expect a landlord to maintain his property? That includes wear and tear. I've never heard of a contract where a tenant is expected to pay for wear and tear unless there has been obviously negligence by the tenant.

@HamBone

Unfortunately, surveys are a waste of time.

We had an 'extended survey' on our 1930's semi. These are the things that were missed.

Leaking pipes under kitchen sink. Unit completely rotten, black mould, etc.

Lead pipes hidden in wall behind kitchen sink. These had been soldered to copper and were leaking from joints = major camp issues in wall.

Exactly the same issue in the toilet.

Poorly fitted double glazing in front bay. Nothing supporting the gable end roof apart from uPVC frames. These distorted and leaked water into wooden frame of bay = rotten frame and major damp. The survey stated it was 'condensation'.

Leaking central heating expansion tank in the loft = rotten ceiling joists.

I'd save the money, get the cheapest survey you can find for your mortgage and start pulling up floorboards. Get in the loft and pull up all the insulation. Buy a £20 thermal gun from Amazon and check for cold spots. They could be leaks from lead pipes hidden in walls or dodgy glazing.

We definitely overpaid for our house given what needed doing.

@ThisGirlNever Yikes, thank awful! We were lucky as our survey did reveal some issues that enabled us to negotiate a price reduction-of course, we still had to fix the issues, but at least we were aware of them.

Best of luck, OP 🤞

• that’s

Are you seriously saying you paid for the refurbishment of a worn out kitchen in a rental? God they saw you coming. The LL is responsible for maintaining the property. If you abused the kitchen then there would be a case for the LL claiming something but an ageing kitchen coming to the end of its life is not the tenant's responsibility. Sorry you were a mug and wasted your money. Your LL must have loooooved you

This is what councils do when people apply to buy their home.. despite them paying rent still they refuse to do any maintenance once the application to buy is in.

Have you had a full structural survey OP? Cupboards actually rotting sounds as though there could be hidden problems.

When I sold our last time was the boiler literally broke the week before we were due to exchange contracts. So of course I replaced the boiler and asked the people who were buying the property which Boiler they would like in case they want to do a little bit to it and get a better Boiler than I would’ve chosen. Right up until contracts are exchanged everything is up for discussion.

Some very useful comments on here.
As a landlord myself, I would definitely consider the above to be wear and tear to the property but I would be questioning how the units rotted so bad in the first place for them to collapse?
What does your tenancy agreement say in regards to repairs?
Personally, if I was selling the property to the tenant and the damage was not self inflicted - e.g: the units were smashed up by the tenant etc then I would reduce the cost of the property if the tenant had paid for the works or just paid for it myself.
Each LL is different though.

I think once an offer on the property has been accepted, the status of the property for non-essential repairs changes, and really this is the case for whoever you’re selling to.

Clearly, a major leak causing damage etc can’t be left and would need repair. Something gradually working less well or becoming damaged that isn’t vital, or that was already damaged particularly, is part of ‘buying as seen’.

Perhaps OP is a first time buyer. Perhaps they don’t realise that when you buy any property, you always need to spend money once you own it…it’s unavoidable. In the bigger context of the huge cost of buying, most things are small and just need sucking up. The time where there’s scope for negotiation is when organising the sale price….that’s the time to raise issues of damage etc. as. As the tenant in situ you’re in a strong position to do it at that point, but later is just too late, especially from a tenant who can’t claim that the state of the property was unknown. If these were big issues, OP should have negotiated on price at the point of offer, although again, you really do buy ‘as seen’ and don’t usually expect a reduction for things that can be seen only the unseen thrown up by the survey.

OP could walk away from the sale. At that point, as a tenant, the LL will need to do repairs that are essential….remember there is a grey area of stuff a tenant might like done, but which could wait for a change if tenancy and aren’t vital and at LL discretion. However, OP wants to buy so won’t walk away in liklihood. If they were buying a property they didn’t live in, they wouldn’t be asking the owner to do this work at this point. I think they are getting abut confused about the property and status of it now. It’s due to cold feet about buying and also the costs that strat to become clear that they will face once owners. It’s an adjustment to go from being a tenant where the LL pays for all repairs, to becoming an owner and realising you will have to pay for this stuff yourself. It’s daunting, but all part if it.

How long is it until you exchange?
Are these issues which previously were totally not evident but have only appeared since the sale was agreed? If they were evident before and you hadn’t raised them before the offer was accepted, I think you are BU to only now raise them, having offered on the property ‘as seen’.

Really, this is about having the property in better condition for you as buyer, rather than as a tenant isn’t it? It’s about not having to spend the money yourself as owner later. Otherwise, you’d have raised the issues before buying.

If a disaster has happened in the time since offer and the property is now not really inhabitable or had serious damage done, then yes, I think the LL should pay, but really it doesn’t sound like that.

There is always work a LL will do between tenancies. It’s stuff that means the property doesn’t look great at the moment but is usable. That’s not stuff a LL needs to do right now and not when selling and after a price has been agreed based on the current property state.

You don't tell us if kitchen unit broke before or after building society valuation. If before LL could just get any old cupboard and fit it in whether it matches rest of kitchen or not but if already valued then I would not expect LL to do any further work on house. Once you have bought house you can buy a second hand complete kitchen including all appliances for well under £1k.