UK - Hot Water changed from Gas to Electric - What recourse do I have? Long question, jump to the end for a TL:DR. I rent a house, I'm the only occupant. My Gas boiler was given a gas safety certificate by an engineer who warned me that the boiler was extremely borderline, and that if it was not for the fact I had just moved in, he would have condemned the boiler. Skip forward six months, I've been in the house, turning the boiler on and off (gas) when I wanted to heat a tank of water, and generally not burning it for more than 30 minutes. It's coming into winter, and now the house needs heating, so I got concerned about my safety and called out an engineer (my own money) to inspect the boiler as a independent third party. He promptly shut off my gas, cut the pipe leading to the boiler, capped off the pipes and gave me a certificate condemning the boiler. No problem there. I let the estate agent know (private rental through an agency). And they told me to use the electric heater in the tank while repairs were conducted. I checked, there was an electric element in the tank, but it was not wired into the house electrics. So they had to call out an electrician. Still not a problem. Contacted the agency to thank them for getting the water temporarily fixed, obviously heating on electric is going to cost me more, so I wanted an estimate of how long the boiler would take to get fixed up. I was then instructed by the estate agent that the boiler would not be repaired, and that I was to use electric from now on. It's coming into winter as I already said, so now I'm expecting this is going to cost me 15~20Kw a day (calculated this from tank size, and thumbing it, so there's definitely some give in those numbers), it's about 3* the price of using Gas to heat the house and heat the water, and if I the electric was on a timer like the Gas was, then I could probably have pulled this down to 6Kw a day. (It does have a thermostat in the tank that stops it boiling, so it just maintains a constant temperature (not sure what temperature exactly)), Over a month under the new system it's going to cost me about £101.29(per/month), where before when it was gas it would have cost me (with the timer and all other benefits) about £9.42(per/month) The electric coil they hooked up also does not have a timer, it's a switch that's either on or off, so it's going to be running 24 hours a day, instead of being on a timer that only runs when I'm expecting to be at home. TL:DR I've emailed the agent to say it's not a good solution and that I expected the landlord would cover the difference in cost. My message: Please also let the landlord know that because the house is now on Electric supply for hot water, and the cost of this is significantly higher than the equivalent Gas system, I will calculate the difference and he will need to cover that. Agents message: Not a problem at all. With regards to the boiler being fixed, the landlord is not going to replace it so therefore, as you have suggested please calculate the difference, which we will then pass onto your landlord. Can I reasonable hold their message as a guarantee that the extra costs will be covered by them/landlord? (The agent is referred to in the contract as attached in image, but does not say anything about having the authority of the landlord to agree things) Alternately (And I've been searching, but can't find a good reference to this anywhere) since the house has been changed from Gas to Electric for Hot Water, is this considered a substantial change in the dwelling? Since there was no electric water before, and the house was "Gas Only" for hot water... (You probably get where I'm going with that) (Reference numbers)
In saying "Not a problem at all", you cannot infer that the agent is committing the landlord to covering the difference in cost. That sentence is standard verbal fluff equivalent to "it's no bother, I'll pass the message on to the landlord". You requested him to inform the landlord of the expected higher cost, and that you hoped he would cover the difference. He then says "please calculate the difference, which we will then pass onto your landlord", so he is agreeing to pass the information on. This is not a commitment by anyone to do what you want. Of course, the lease might specifically commit them to providing a gas-fired boiler. If so, you should expect that they will cover the difference in cost for the duration of the lease (and the lease may change after the current period).
To get an answer tailored to your problem, you need to get a lawyer. The general answer is that the water bill goes with the property, not the person using the water. The unpaid bill can become a lien on the property, and the house can be taken and sold to satisfy the lien. There are other factors / questions. Under Florida law (180.135), if the debt arises from a renter who incurred the debt directly with the utility, a lien cannot be placed against the property. Any lien must be perfected (filed with the courts), and the point of a title search is to find such liens – assuming that a title search was done. There is a limit to how long you can wait to collect on a debt (7 years).
There are two separate issues here. Firstly, the deposit. Any deposit is required by law to either be placed in an approved deposit scheme provider at the start of any tenancy, or be insured with a provider. Either way, the landlord (or their letting agent) is required to issue the tenant with certain prescribed information within a certain period, as well as meet a few other requirements. Failing to do this can result in the landlord having to return the deposit and pay a fine to the tenant - if the tenant is willing to take him to court. If the landlord has done everything by the book, they don't owe you anything. (If they've paid the deposit into a scheme, then they will not receive any interest, as it's kept by the scheme provider to pay for their services.) Secondly, the renewal fee. These are legal and commonplace. However, you're never obliged to renew your tenancy, as if the fixed term expires and you don't leave, then it automatically becomes a statutory periodic tenancy (often called a "rolling tenancy"). With a periodic tenancy, you can leave by giving one month's notice in writing; or your landlord can request that you leave by issuing a section 21 notice, which gives you two months to depart or face legal action. If you tell the landlord that you would like to change to a periodic tenancy when the current fixed term ends, then no-one has to do anything (though the letting agency may charge you an admin fee). The landlord cannot impose a new tenancy agreement, but they can issue a section 21 notice. Or, as you suggest, you can request a longer fixed term. This provides more security for you and the landlord - though it makes it harder to leave early, as you're potentially liable for the rent for the whole term.
Normally, the person who uses the electricity and pays for it is the &quot;customer&quot;, that's you, not your landlord nor the maintenance company. Check out section 6.3.3 (A) of the MOCOPA agreement: the Distribution Business shall agree with the Customer or developer the position and space for the Metering Equipment, and shall, in so much as it is within its reasonable control, ensure it remains reserved. The location must be accessible to the Customer so they can read their meter and to the MOCOPA Operator (via the Customer). Consideration shall be given to the accessibility of the location to all users. The Distribution Businesses’ service termination equipment and the Metering Equipment should be located between 0.5 and 1.8m above finished floor level subject to unavoidable constraints such as vandalism or fire risk mitigation Essentially, after the locks have been changed the last time, the building is no longer compliant with MOCOPA agreement requirements: I don't see any provisions that would allow to substitute the customer access to the metering equipment with an access via a proxy such as cleaning personnel. Start by sending a letter by registered mail to the maintenance company, requesting them to provide you the access to the meter. Mention the agreement you have found as grounds for your request. You might want o clarify upfront with your electricity provider who exactly you are supposed to contact, the maintenance company would be my first guess. Chances are, you'll be given the access code. If they still refuse, they should state the reasons for doing so. Check their answer carefully, and if you are not convinced, you could take legal action (you may want to bring the response letter to a lawyer first). Having a copy of the letter you'd have sent will be a requirement for the legal action to be effective.
If you introduced the bedbugs, liability could flow to you by way of the landlord keeping your security deposit (if there is one) and explaining when sending you notice that a portion/all of your deposit was withheld due to you causing the infestation for the purposes of remediation. The inverse is also true, in that if you do not have a deposit, you could be sued in housing/small claims court for the infestation if you were negligent in some way (grabbed the mattress curbside and didn't put a bedbug proof sealed cover on the mattress. Since you said you rent a room, my curiosity is piqued as to whether it came with the bed (mattress). If the bed came with the room, it is almost certainly not your fault. Even when there are statutes/codes/regs delineating a lessor's/lessee's obligations and rights re pest control (from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) they rarely exclude the right to general civil remedies. I used to represent my municipality and remember reading that bed bugs are difficult to treat unless the bed is disposed of and all bedding is washed in hot water with a disinfectant and even that can not ensure their removal because if you brought them in because of access to them on a regular basis (e.g., if you are a maid at a motel), then you may continue to introduce them. If the room had no bedbugs and you brought the bed in and now it does, it may be easier to prove who created the unsafe/unsettling condition, as opposed to ants, roaches, spiders, which can be introduced in myriad ways.
This is outside the scope of landlord-tenant law and the obligation of the landlord to make the premise habitable. Building codes are not imposed retroactively on existing housing, so while it is true that you cannot legally build a house without service grounding, you do not have to install service grounding when that becomes part of the electrical code (which was decades ago). The law is here; the state could have impose an obligation on landlords to always update plumbing, electrical etc. so that rental housing always conforms to current codes, but it did not. If the electric does not work properly, that has to be repaired, but if there is a functioning but less than ideal electric (knob and tube wiring; ungrounded; no GFI circuits in the bathroom, incorrect receptacle covers, overburdened or improperly placed service panel, too few receptacles), that's not something you can legally force a landlord to change.
Yes, independent contractors are liable for their acts and omissions The contract between the contractor and the principal should set out what the contractor is expected to do and the standard to which they are expected to do it. If the contract does not set this out then they will be required to perform to the standard of a reasonable person doing that sort of work plus any statutory requirements. So, if they are a plumber, then they are required to install the plumbing to the applicable building codes and to the standard that a reasonably competent plumber would do so. If they fail to do the work or fail to do it to the required standard then they are liable for any damages the principal suffers as a result. Further, an independent contractor is liable for any tort that they may commit against a third party. So, to continue the plumber example, if the plumber negligently installs pipe for a builder and that pipe breaks damaging a tenant's goods (i.e someone outside the contractual chain), then that tenant can sue the plumber for negligence but cannot sue the builder or landlord. Employees are the same but also different Employers are vicariously liable to third parties for the acts and omissions of their employees except where they are on a frolic of their own (i.e. doing something that is clearly outside the scope of their employment). At common law, the employee is also liable to the third party and the employer, however, such claims are rarely pursued because a) where there is insurance, the employee is also covered b) the employee may lack the assets to meet the damages and so be &quot;judgement proof&quot; c) it's really bad PR and d) many jurisdictions prohibit it by statute (e.g. new-south-wales). Protection for an independent contractor Insurance Public &amp; product liability certainly. Motor vehicle insurance if applicable. Professional indemnity insurance if the work is of a &quot;professional&quot; nature, that is, involves providing advice rather than just goods and services. Protection for an employee Insurance Check that your employer has the right insurance and that it covers their employees. Is it better to be an employee or an IC of said company to avoid this type of liability? Like you have a choice. The nature of the relationship will determine if you are an IC or an employee. If you are clearly running an independent business then you are an independent contractor. If you are clearly a wage or salary earner then you are an employee. If it's unclear, you are still one or the other and you don't get to choose. See Indepdendent/Contractor vs Regular Employee
It says it's an "MP4 player" but it doesn't play MP4s. This seems rather straightforward to me---assuming it really doesn't play any kind of MP4 at all. I would agree you could go back to the shop armed with the appropriate wording from the SoG Act and state your case to the manager. If the front desk staff are unhelpful don't argue with them but rather ask to speak to the duty manager. No doubt the staff will talk about their thirty day return policy, but you are not interested in this; since you are relying on your statutory rights. If that is not successful, write directly to the head office. Keep your letter short, neutral and with no emotion whatsoever. Describe the facts, include proof of purchase, and request your money back. Argos is a large shop, they will pay you off ("as a gesture of good will") rather than fight a pointless claim in the SCC. However taking an action to the SCC is not necessarily free so you might yourselves not feel it worth it.