Early this year the government has published
on their website a guide to renting which
you may find helpful. To access the document
please see below or alternatively visit www.gov.uk
Regulations
- Blinds
All chains and cords on internal blinds must be min of 1.5 m above the floor. Safety devices may need to be put in place to ensure this.
for more detailed info please visit :
- Banisters/ Handrails
Stairs should have a handrail on at least one side if they are less than 1m wide. They should have a handrail on both sides if they are wider than 1m. You do not need a handrail on the first two steps up. In all the buildings handrail height should be between 900mm and 1000mm measured to the top of the handrail to the pitch line. A 100mm sphere cannot pass through any openings between spindles or any other gaps in the handrail, such as between glass panels.
For more detail on stairs regulations please visit :
- Repairs responsibility
Tenant – Light bulbs, damage to another property due tenants action for instance leak damage extended to the next flat, damages to the property caused by tenants family and friends. Tenants should only carry out repairs if the tenancy agreement says they can.
Landlord – Property structure and exterior including plasterwork, all sanitary fittings including pipes and drains, heating and hot water, electrical wiring, gas pipes, appliances, flues and ventilation, any damage caused by repairs.
- Energy efficiency
As of 1 April 2018, you can ONLY grant new tenancies and renewals of existing tenancies for properties which have a minimum energy efficiency rating of E. So if your property has a rating of F or G – you will be letting the property illegally.
As of 1 April 2020, this will apply also to all existing tenancies. Whether they are within their fixed term or running as a periodic tenancy. So you will not be able to let ANY properties which have a rating of F or G – unless there is an exemption.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
ADR is an alternative way of resolving disputes, other than by using the
traditional route of the Courts. It is an evidence based process, where the
outcome is decided by an impartial and qualified adjudicator.
All tenancy deposit protection schemes use the ‘adjudication’ method to deal
with deposit disputes.
PARTIES IN DISPUTE
The parties in dispute are required to submit their evidence to the
adjudicator. The evidence provided should be both robust and reliable
in order to support a claim. They will need to do this within specified
timescales laid down by the individual deposit protection scheme. You
should check the processes you are required to follow with your
particular scheme.
ADR PROCESS
The adjudicator will analyse and consider the evidence and make a
binding decision as to how the disputed amount of the deposit should
be distributed. Remember that the tenant has no obligation to prove his
argument, because the deposit remains his property until successfully
claimed for by the landlord. A landlord must prove that he has, on the
‘balance of probability’, a legitimate claim to retain all or part of the
deposit. If he can’t, the adjudicator must return the disputed amount to
the tenant. The adjudicator’s decision will be based on the evidence
presented.
EVIDENCE
You only need to submit evidence in support of a dispute where you
consider it is directly relevant to the dispute. So if there is a claim to a
damage contents only evidence of these is needed. If the dispute is
about cleanliness than only evidence to this is required.
An adjudicator will take into account any admissions of liability by the
tenant; however evidence should still be provided to show how the
tenant has broken the tenancy agreement, and the loss suffered as a
result. Evidence which shows that the landlord tried to reach a
compromise, or to keep the amount of their claim to a minimum, is
helpful too.
ADR IS NOT :
a process of mediation, arbitration, or counselling
the parties will never be required to meet with the adjudicator.
the adjudicator will not be visiting the property subject to the tenancy
agreement or dispute.
Where a check-in is challenged by the tenant, a full audit trail of what remedial action has occurred
should be provided and a revised checkin agreed and signed. It is preferable if check-in and check-
out inspections are produced in a similar format – where possible by the same person. To enable
meaningful comparisons to be made, it is also important that the same measurements of the
property’s condition are used in both reports.
It is sensible to carry out periodic inspections of the property during the tenancy. These naturally are not as detailed as check-in and check-out inspections at the start and
end of the tenancy.
Wear and Tear
The House of Lords defined fair wear and tear as “reasonable use of the premises by the tenant and the ordinary operation of natural forces”. The word ‘reasonable’ can be interpreted differently, depending on the type of property and who occupies it. In addition, it is an established legal principle that a landlord is not entitled to charge his tenants the full cost for having any part of his property, or any fixture or fitting, “…..put back to the condition it was at the start of the tenancy.”
Landlords should therefore keep in mind that the tenant’s deposit is not to be used like an insurance policy where you might get “full replacement value” or “new for old”. The landlord also has a duty to act reasonably and not claim more than is necessary to make good any loss.
EXAMPLES:
• Replacement of a damaged item may be justified where it is either severely and extensively
damaged beyond economic repair or, its condition makes it unusable;
• Repair or cleaning is a more likely award where replacement cannot be justified;
• In cases where an item has had its value reduced or its lifespan shortened, for example by
damage, an award of compensation may be appropriate;
In addition to seeking the most appropriate remedy, the landlord should not end up, either
financially or materially, in a better position than he was at start of the tenancy, or than he would
have otherwise been at the end of the tenancy after having allowed for fair wear and tear.
ADJUDICATORS CONSIDER FACTORS AS:
• Length of tenancy – the longer the tenancy, the more natural wear. Also was it brand new or has it already seen a few tenancies come and go.
• Number and age of occupiers – the more bedrooms and occupants, the higher the wear and tear that should be expected in all the common parts e.g. sitting room, passages, stairs, bathrooms and kitchen. If you are letting to a family with children, factor that in too. Scuffs and scrapes are unavoidable in normal family life. A property occupied by a single person should see far less wear than a family of four, so bear this in mind when it’s time for tenants to check out.
• Wear and tear vs. actual damage – Damage i.e. breaking something is not wear and tear –
meaning either replacement or repair. Light marks on a carpet might have to be viewed as
unavoidable. On the other hand, damage such as nail varnish spills on the floor or iron burns that
have occurred due to negligence could see the tenant liable for repair. Consider whether the item
has been damaged or worn out through natural use versus negligence when making a judgement
call.
• Quality and Condition – consider the original quality of the item at the start of the tenancy and what it originally cost to provide. It would unreasonable for a landlord to provide a cheap and flimsy set of bedroom furniture and then blame the tenant if the items are damaged through normal usage. Adjudicators may expect to see receipts or other evidence to confirm an item’s age, or its cost and quality when new. Another consideration is the quality or fabric of the property itself. Many new builds tend not to be quite as robust as older properties or conversions. Walls, partitions and internal painted surfaces tend to be thinner and therefore likely to suffer more stress, particularly in higher footfall areas of the property. This inevitably means that there is a greater need for redecoration at the end of the tenancy period. An adjudicator may therefore consider more than a simple contribution to the cost of redecoration from the tenant to be unreasonable.
