UK Landlord Forum / Life

If a property is let unfurnished, but there is an integrated cooker.
Is the landlord or tenant responsible for repairs or to replace?
Many thanks 😊

If it was there from the start it's implicitly part of the tenancy, so it's the landlord's responsibility to maintain it (subject to the tenant using it in a reasonable tenant-like manner).

Thank you 😊

If it's not on the inventory then it's technically not in the kitchen

Quote from: Revo on December 11, 2020, 05:43:39 PM
If it's not on the inventory then it's technically not in the kitchen

Well, if you want to be that kind of landlord, you could try that line but I don't think it would hold a lot of water. Besides, the flip side of that would be that anything not specified in the inventory is fair game for the tenant to remove...

Yes,that would be nice,finding they have taken the bath,shower cubicle and loos with them.

Quote from: Simon Pambin on December 12, 2020, 11:35:18 AM

Quote from: Revo on December 11, 2020, 05:43:39 PM
If it's not on the inventory then it's technically not in the kitchen

Well, if you want to be that kind of landlord, you could try that line but I don't think it would hold a lot of water. Besides, the flip side of that would be that anything not specified in the inventory is fair game for the tenant to remove...

Tried and tested method works well with older white goods.

The vibe you're getting from your original comment is that while the approach of "Inventory is King" may work, and be tried and tested, it's unlikely to be moral. Hence disliked by the upstanding Landlords here. If a Tenant moves into a property and there's a working integrated cooker then is a fair assumption it's there for them to use and forms part of the deal. People shouldn't have to seek clarity on this unless they've been bitten before or they already know they're dealing with an unscrupulous slum Landlord. That said, I let property unfurnished - but that has never once meant there was no cooker... and it has never once meant I wasn't responsible for repair or replacement in case of it breaking (as things just sometimes do). The whole idea of this technical approach relayed makes me sad.

I suppose you live & learn, advice is just that advice, if you disagree with it so be it but to assume & indicate the advice borders on a morality issue or a definition then it becomes a assumed subjective to the writer/reader but weighted towards a collective alignment & agreement of the negative.

Would you consider excessive cleaning damage ? The intention is most certainly of a willingness towards upkeep, unfortunately the efforts resulted in a perfectly good integrated oven becoming unusable because the settings had been cleaned off to within an inch of its life so they asked for a new oven. You can obviously assume my response.

Citing a specific one-off instance (that is applicable to only you and was added, later, as clarification) as justification for advising that others might consider an immoral modus operandi is evidently nonsense... and also irrelevant to the question asked by the OP in the first place. In the future we'll certainly expect more thought from you behind what may seem and feel like throwaway comments at the time. No need to dig your heels in, better to add an emoji to indicate what you said is not considered advice to contemplate, rather an attempt at jocularity - "not in the Inventory then it's not in the property" - of course, many of us can see that you were joking (as, at best, it only highlights the Landlord's "half-a-job" mentality and, at worst, it demonstrates how someone might deliberately set out to deceive a customer) but some other inexperienced Landlords may not and we don't want that.

Welcome to the forum and a happy PRS.

Personally I think it answers the question perfectly, it matters not that the appliance is listed but how it's treated even with the best intentions nobody arrived at that conclusion, am I supposed to dip my hand in my pocket to replace for good intentions as well actions of misuse, let's not claim responsibility for something that depends on input we have no control over, so it may as well not belong to anyone, it's the question that provoked irrelevant responses. My MO operates first & foremost around my properties, I remove anything that potentially threatens the equilibrium including & not limited to anyone & I repeat anything in the way.

How we react to situations is important, many irrelevant reply's litter this forum without justification adding the emoji would dilute the response & dampen debate, we as landlords are ultimately responsible, how we deliver that responsibility depends on the tenant while keeping within the law. The laws an ass to landlords as it treats us all with an unjust contempt at some point, we mustn't shoulder this burden or attempt to relay it in a submissive way, morality, you can lead with it or hide behind it, the choice is yours.

I do enjoy this forum, I enjoy being a landlord, some of my answers may provoke but I respect your reply's. 

What is not clear is whether you make it plain in writing that you will not be responsible for the repair/replacement of certain appliances.This at least would give the tenant the chance to decline and look elsewhere.If you simply don't put these things down,and wait to catch them out later,then I think that is really grubby.
In the early days I provided televisions and microwaves in the studio flats,making it clear on the inventory that they could use them,but I would not replace if broken.The need for PAT testing,and the change in the type of tenants I was getting made me stop.I don't do furnished ,but a cooker,fridge and washing machine are always provided.Repairs are rarely worth the expense,so I usually buy new when they break down.It would never occur to me to do otherwise.I don't want good tenants to move out,works out expensive.