Cooker or not

[Giff]

I am fitting a new kitchen in a house that I rent out unfurnished. Do you recommend installing a cooker or not?

[Melboy]

Short answer is yes. Tenant's expect to see a cooker in the kitchen. Avoid second hand always and buy only new and a reputable make as well with a good guarantee.

[Richlist]

I agree.

A new cooker is going to cost a few hundred pounds which is a fairly small amount to help ensure that you  i) Maximise rental income ii) Let the property quickly.

Take the following tax situation into account. If there has been no cooker installed you cannot claim the initial cost of a free standing cooker now. However, if you install a built in cooker you can claim the initial cost against CGT as it forms part of the kitchen.

Gas cookers can be a pain in the ar*e especially if there are no other gas appliances and you have to pay for a gas cert for it every year. I always go for electric cookers/hobs.

 

[bil8999]

I always install built in cooker and hob, but I also put a clause in the contract that the tenant is responsible repairs etc. 

[Richlist]

How confident are you of the legality of that clause ?

I was under the impression that the housing act makes the landlord responsible  for repairs. It's one of the reasons many landlords no longer provide washing machines and many other electrical items.

Have you or anyone else tested this in the courts ?

[Grampa]

I had heard about 9/10 years ago that trading standards had approved that type of clause. Whether that made it enforceable across the board I'm not sure.

I have had the below in my tenancies for the last 7-8 years and it has never been seriously questioned.

The tenant shall maintain and repair all equipment including but without exception fridge, freeze, cooker, washing machine, dishwasher at the tenants expense. However, should any items be beyond repair, the Landlord does not undertake to replace the appliance, except those which the landlord is required by law to maintain.

BUT: I am very selective when I enforce it which isn't very often.

Most tenants I find dont read the tenancy so are unaware of the clause and just phone up if a fault arises but you dont really want tenants tinkering around with integrated units or trying to fix a electrical fault themselves to save a few quid.

But it certainly helps if you have a tenant that has been causing problems or in the process of been kicked out because regardless of how much them are in the wrong or rent arrears they have, they will want their appliance fixed and quote the council or shelter says this and that but the above clause seems to stop that dead in its tracks. 

The last thing you want to do is be forced to spend out for a new appliance which could be nicked or damaged when you finally get a dodgy tenant out.

Of course everything is arguable in a court of law but threatening it and doing it are two different things.  

[Richlist]

Yes I understand.

I have x3 A4 pages of extra clauses and many of them have never, to my knowledge, been tested in court.

I agree that having a clause, even if it's legality may be questionable, will still be usefull as most tenants never follow up or bother to check.

Fortunately cookers, fridges and vac cleaners very rarely require repairs. Washing machines can be more problematic.

Failing to repair or replace an item can certainly lead to tenants serving notice so I guess it's really down to landlords choice on how they want to handle it.

However.........Choosing not to pay for a repair or replacement can of course be done without having the unenforceable clause in the contract. So, doesn't that make the clause rather superfluous / of no use what so ever ?

[Grampa]

I see where you are coming from but the main point of the clause is to stop the argument/demand in the first place (if you choose to) which is where its value is and if the landlord does do the repair it shows what a wonderful landlord they are "as they didnt have to". But I would point out that very few of my managed properties come with white goods other than cookers.

Also it is still a grey area as far as I'm aware.

[Richlist]

This is a very difficult area because whilst I am definitely of the opinion that its better to have a clause in a contract......even if it unenforceable legally......we know that most tenants don't read all of the contract before they sign it. 

That means you either have to:

i) insist they read all of it, or

ii) specifically point out the main areas before they sign it or

iii) just surprise them by saying  " I'm not gonna fix the washing machine, it's your responsibility" when it breaks down.

I wouldn't want to risk loosening a first class tenant after the effort to find one by insisting on i or ii or risk them serving notice on iii. Better in my opinion to just repair or replace at landlord cost and introduce a small rent increase e.g. £25pcm to amortise the full cost e.g. £300 over the following 12 months.

I do think the type of tenant and the property location has an input to this as well. My tenants tend to work in the professions, have high expectations and would not be happy without having white goods supplied at the landlords responsibility. I also have to be competitive and few landlords around here expect tenants to repair white goods.

Perhaps at the benefits tenant end the landlord can get away with more because the tenant has lower expectations.

But in any event, I guess, we are each going to do what works for us within the rules.

 

[Grampa]

Horses for courses I guess

[Melboy]

My contract is clear to the tenant. I am responsible for the cooker and fridge supplied. I do not supply washing machines due to countless problems over the past years and at least 3 cases of misuse by the tenants which has led to writing off w/machine less that 2 years old. My rents are below market value and I point this out to any prospective tenant and if I was to supply an array of white goods at my expense then the rent would be that much higher.

This explanation seems to work as I have never had any complaints.

Here is landlord's nightmare. A friend of mine.

Tenant is arrears to the landlord by over £2,000 and refuses to pay any rent and the eviction process has started.  The CH/HW boiler has just  broken down and is beyond repair so a new one is required at a cost of around £2,000. Landlord has been told he must install one within 14 days or face prosecution.

[bil8999]

The way I look at it, when a tenant moves out I clean the cooker if possible to an acceptable level, if not I replace, if they can afford 57 inch sky tv then they should be responsible for repairs to cooker.

It seems to work for me.

Only the other day I sent my decorator into a flat to redecorate a tenants lounge, didn't have to but they are good tenants so its swings and rounds on  both sides.

[Grampa]

3 hours ago, Melboy said:

 

Here is landlord's nightmare. A friend of mine.

Tenant is arrears to the landlord by over £2,000 and refuses to pay any rent and the eviction process has started.  The CH/HW boiler has just  broken down and is beyond repair so a new one is required at a cost of around £2,000. Landlord has been told he must install one within 14 days or face prosecution.

The trouble is, in the eyes of the the law (not the landlord) they are two different issues but can be connected when trying to get a tenant out and scupper an eviction if not done.