Who's responsible for missed call-out fee?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    No but that is not how it works.

    a) T grants permission for L (or L's representative/agent/workman) to access at a particular time
    b) Tenant either agrees or disagrees (or remains silent).
    c) If any of the latter two, the work does not get done
    d) If tenant insists on being present, but is not present at the agreed time, the work does not get done (and tenant pays for costs incurred)

    The tenant cannot insist on which particular member of the landlord, or landlord's agent attends (if any) and if they insist on being present they have to make themselves available to be present.

    If the works need doing to protect the property and the tenant does not permit the works (by insisting on being present and then not making themselves available to be present, or by not responding, or by refusing, or by making stipulations about the exact person who is allowed to enter in their absence, they T is liable for any consequential losses.

    What is clear is that the tenant cannot say I refuse to be present, but a workman is only allowed to enter if accompanied by the landlord (or father christmas or any equally untrustworthy person) - well they can say that -- but it is equivalent to refusing to permit works.


      They tell the tenants that if tenant does not wish to be present or refuses to be present, then they will give keys to contractor to let themselves in and asking permission to do that. If tenant refuses then they are basically refusing to allow works to be done (with whatever ramifications that has for tenant and landlord).

      Saying that a workman can only be trusted if admitted to the property by some representative of the landlord makes no logical sense whatsoever and at any level.
      - It assumes that the L or their representative are more trustworthy than the contractor
      - The contractor is in any case an agent of L
      - It assumes that the person who will oversee the contractor will stay with that contractor and observe them every minute


        What would you think to my situation - I've only ever really been happy with contractors / others coming over when I'm in, however, I'm coming to the end of my tenancy, as I know that my landlords wish to redecorate and do an EICR check etc. As such I've also said I'm happy for others to come in, with the landlord present - this is because I know my availability over the next month is a bit hit and miss, and I trust the landlord themselves (rented from them for over 4 years - I wouldn't have been happy with this at the start of my tenancy), but have no idea about any contractors.

        If the landlord can't make it I'll happily facilitate a contractor coming in when I'm around, but as mentioned this is sporadic.


          That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. I would say the more different people the landlord has coming into the property, particularly if unaccompanied, the less chance he has of making any damage claim against you stick.


            They've come over and seen the property anyway recently as they wanted (and I was happy to facilitate) to decide what work to do prior to re-letting, so I have an idea of what I'm going to be charged for anyway (and all of it is reasonable).



              Well as I said, if you refuse you are responsible for the consequences. In the case of your scenario, the consequences are zero (except perhaps in the usual quid-pro-quo that happens at the end of a tenancy -- for example if T is helpful L may allow rent to be calculated pro rata - no quid no pro).

              It is not the same if the works were (say) a leaking roof causing progressive damages.


                Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                Well as I said, if you refuse you are responsible for the consequences.
                I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. I could easily see a judge ruling that the tenants position was reasonable and the landlord had not made sufficient effort to comply with their s11 responsibilities.


                  How can one make an effort other than by asking the tenant if the tradesman can enter? I see no other method other than obtaining an injunction.

                  In this particular instance the problem is nil since there are no contractual consequential losses.


                    The tenants position is simply that tradespeople should not be at his home unaccompanied. If he had an elderly or otherwise vulnerable relative living with him or was from a culture where male family members had to be present, this would throw the whole issue into sharper relief.



                      Unaccompanied by what?

                      It would be totally unacceptable to insist on the sex of a tradesperson.

                      Are you saying that the landlord is going to protect the tenant against the rapist plumber(ess)? Or maybe the landlord is the rapist?

                      What if an agent is involved -- would tenant insist on a particular random person from the agency, and trust them more than a random plumber. Or is the issue that there has to be a pair?

                      Frankly it makes no sense -- and is probably illegal to discriminate against certain persons in this way.


                        I don't understand what the issue is. If you said you'd be there you should. If you're not, without advising the landlord you should pay. My tradespeople say I'll be there a bit before 9 which I take to mean between 8.30 and 9. Were you out? Is it worth the argument. You should split the charge 50/50 with the landlord.


                          A bit before isn't really a specific time, you might take it to be between 0830 and 9, but others would reasonably interpret it as 0845-0900, or 0855-0900. Honestly, a specific time should have been given, or the tradesperson should have waited until 9. It's on the landlord for not being more specific.


                            Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
                            My tradespeople say I'll be there a bit before 9 which I take to mean between 8.30 and 9.
                            I would take "a bit before 9" to be "no earlier than 8:50".
                            8:30 is as for "before 9" as you can get.



                              Your omission to answer why you were not there is noticeable but as you say, ‘a bit’ means different things for different people. I don’t understand why the landlord didn’t give the contractor your mobile phone number so they could have called you... but I don’t understand many things about this story.


                                I'm not the OP!


                                Latest Activity


                                • Reply to Direct Debit vs Standing Order
                                  by boletus
                                  It's just one of many, many things that come up during a natural conversation with a prospective tenant. E.g "How are you paying the rent?"

                                  DD & SO are often used interchangeably. I've lost count of the amount of times I've explained it. A tenant knowing the difference wouldn't...
                                  23-09-2020, 10:00 AM
                                • Direct Debit vs Standing Order
                                  by danwestgarth
                                  Has anyone any experience in collecting rent from tenants using Direct Debit opposed to Standing Order? From what i understand, with Direct Debit the payee (landlord) is in control, rather than the payor (tenant). JCould be a good way to minimize missed payments during covid-19. Does anyone know of...
                                  22-09-2020, 15:44 PM
                                • Reply to Rent arrears
                                  by Perce
                                  Those who are not paying anything are doing it deliberately or cannot be bothered to make arrangements. Where do they get money to eat, pay bills, pay council tax, pay for mobile phones, pay for petrol like my tenant ? The government provides a lot of support with rent. I have just looked in my area...
                                  23-09-2020, 09:59 AM
                                • Rent arrears
                                  by MP31

                                  I have a tenant who got in arrears in the end of 2019 by 1.5 months because of work then continued to pay full rent until Covid. He couldn't work and was unfortunate to not get furlough or any government scheme other that UC so we arranged a reduced for 4 months. Now he is behind further...
                                  22-09-2020, 19:58 PM
                                • Reply to Rent arrears
                                  by Hudson01
                                  This speaks volumes in my opinion....... he could simply be playing for time, get rid asap....
                                  23-09-2020, 09:31 AM
                                • Reply to Rent arrears
                                  by jpkeates
                                  Assuming the tenant really doesn't have any money, suing them for it is unlikely to do any good.

                                  If you serve notice, the tenant may simply stop paying rent - as they might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, and you've already shown that you intend to evict them.

                                  I would...
                                  23-09-2020, 09:02 AM
                                • Reply to Direct Debit vs Standing Order
                                  by ChrisDennison
                                  I still don’t understand how he would be arguing about it if he accepts you wanting to set rent payments up by direct debit rather than by standing order...? Or if he accepts you wanting to set up a standing order rather than a direct debit? ​​​​​​

                                  Or how there is a red flag...
                                  23-09-2020, 08:53 AM
                                • Reply to Do you regularly (or at all) increase rent for existing tenants?
                                  by tatemono
                                  the philosophy of being nice is not posited on it being reciprocated. In fact, historically some have argued cogently that it would cease to be such a philosophy if that were the case.

                                  But I digress.

                                  I disagree that the "Christmas bonus" idea is a better policy. In...
                                  23-09-2020, 08:48 AM
                                • Do you regularly (or at all) increase rent for existing tenants?
                                  by ChrisDennison
                                  I would like to gauge your experience on this - in all my properties I have never increased rent in an existing tenancy, regardless of how long the tenant stays. Am I stupid or normal or somewhere in between?

                                  I’m of course happy to adjust to market rent whenever a tenant moves out and...
                                  19-09-2020, 19:00 PM
                                • Reply to Do you regularly (or at all) increase rent for existing tenants?
                                  by ExpertInAField
                                  I've found that being nice has worked out for me. That if you are charging someone less, they are aware of this and will do what they can to remain in the property. Maybe I've been lucky and not had anyone try to take advantage yet, but I have a great relationship with all of my tenants.
                                  23-09-2020, 08:19 AM