nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Who's responsible re:chimney sweep?

Claireabella

Landlord landed at the door with a chimney sweep wanting it done then and there, and has demanded I pay for it. Not impressed, I would have liked some notice so I could account for the cost, I am living pretty frugally as it is! Is it mine or the landlords responsibly to pay for? No mention either way in lease

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

1874

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If the fire is used the chimney needs cleaning annually. It is not unlike a gas or oil boiler. Carbon monoxide is a dangerous thing.

I'm not condoning the landlord doorsteping the tenant. Unless an emergency notice should have been given.

I dont think Carbon monoxide is a possible issue if the chimney is being swept annually, Id be inclined to think the main hazard is a chimney fire from soot, its possible a birds nest might be made and block the chimney, but I think this would be noticeable before people started suffering the effects of CO poisoning, a birds nest seems more likely if the chimney isn't in use for a while.

[Deleted User]

1874 wrote:

I dont think Carbon monoxide is a possible issue if the chimney is being swept annually, Id be inclined to think the main hazard is a chimney fire from soot, its possible a birds nest might be made and block the chimney, but I think this would be noticeable before people started suffering the effects of CO poisoning, a birds nest seems more likely if the chimney isn't in use for a while.

This is my point. It's a health & safety issue & the chimney should be cleaned annually. Otherwise there is risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.

ted1

How often do you use the fire?

beauf

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is my point. It's a health & safety issue & the chimney should be cleaned annually. Otherwise there is risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.

What if a tenant refuses to allow access to get it done. (and its not in the lease).

[Deleted User]

beauf wrote:

What if a tenant refuses to allow access to get it done. (and its not in the lease).

Let's change chimney clean to a gas boiler service. It is in the lease & is covered by legislation.

Landlord can enter the property without permission in an emergency. Landlord can even do this without the tenants knowing. Landlord has the right to protect his property and has a legal obligation to protect the tenant.

In OP's case the landlord seems to be a bit of a dic. Obviously the correct way to do things is to try get tenants agreement first. Only if tenant is being a dic should landlord just arrive at the door without notice.

1874

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is my point. It's a health & safety issue & the chimney should be cleaned annually. Otherwise there is risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Actually, it wasnt, you're citing CO as the reason to clean chimneys, I was saying chimneys are cleaned to prevent the risk of chimney fires, which before CO was really considered and open/solid fuel fires were common and frequently used. Then an annual chimney clean was to prevent chimney fires, inadvertently they may have cleared blockages/debris from birds nests, but Id say there was limited build up of that in used chimneys as I dont think birds would start building a nest in a used chimney.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Let's change chimney clean to a gas boiler service. It is in the lease & is covered by legislation.

Landlord can enter the property without permission in an emergency. Landlord can even do this without the tenants knowing. Landlord has the right to protect his property and has a legal obligation to protect the tenant.

In OP's case the landlord seems to be a bit of a dic. Obviously the correct way to do things is to try get tenants agreement first. Only if tenant is being a dic should landlord just arrive at the door without notice.

There are contradictions in what a landlord is legally required to do and then what they can do with the tenants consent. There are examples even in posts here, you'll have tenants complaining about not getting certain things done quick enough, but then have been shown to have either complained that they wanted to prevent access or did prevent access.

Next, this is not about a gas boiler, you dont know whats in the lease, and as a former landlord, I would only have entered a property in an actual emergency to shut off a burst water pipe if the tenants were not present or I knew they were gone or there was a complaint about that problem from a neighbour or to tend to a similar complaint about a gas leak or suspected leak, (report and let someone from gas networks in), those are examples of emergencies.

You simply cant turn up, unlock the doors and gain access, or turn up unannounced with an RGi in tow to carry out a boiler service. I would not do it if the tenant had not confirmed they were ok with it. If they were difficult about gaining access for that, Id put the responsibility on the tenant by formally notifying them in writing that they were in breach of their lease and preventing me carrying out my responsibilities. Id rather defend myself in court if they died of CO poisoning in the meantime than defend myself in an RTB hearing because I accessed the property without their permission.
I would not put myself at cost or time inconvenience for a tenant to complain or turn me away.

As for chimney cleaning, its in the landlords interest to protect their property, they could claim it back in costs, it'd be in their interests to pay, to at least ensure their insurance conditions are met. While I dont think its enshrined in law for it to be done, Im not sure for certain.

It does seem like something a tenant might be considered to pay towards, that said, open fires are a potential fire hazard and are mostly inefficient anyway.

beauf

If more thinking if there is a fire the safety angle. Secondly the landlord would be liable for the fire brigade charges for a chimney fire. Also the damage caused could be considerable.

Claireabella

ted1 wrote: »

How often do you use the fire?

I use it daily during winter months. Though my neighbor only uses gas never the fire and still was expected to pay as the tenant

[Deleted User]

1874 wrote: »

Actually, it wasnt, you're citing CO as the reason to clean chimneys, I was saying chimneys are cleaned to prevent the risk of chimney fires, which before CO was really considered and open/solid fuel fires were common and frequently used. Then an annual chimney clean was to prevent chimney fires, inadvertently they may have cleared blockages/debris from birds nests, but Id say there was limited build up of that in used chimneys as I dont think birds would start building a nest in a used chimney.

There are contradictions in what a landlord is legally required to do and then what they can do with the tenants consent. There are examples even in posts here, you'll have tenants complaining about not getting certain things done quick enough, but then have been shown to have either complained that they wanted to prevent access or did prevent access.

Next, this is not about a gas boiler, you dont know whats in the lease, and as a former landlord, I would only have entered a property in an actual emergency to shut off a burst water pipe if the tenants were not present or I knew they were gone or there was a complaint about that problem from a neighbour or to tend to a similar complaint about a gas leak or suspected leak, (report and let someone from gas networks in), those are examples of emergencies.

You simply cant turn up, unlock the doors and gain access, or turn up unannounced with an RGi in tow to carry out a boiler service. I would not do it if the tenant had not confirmed they were ok with it. If they were difficult about gaining access for that, Id put the responsibility on the tenant by formally notifying them in writing that they were in breach of their lease and preventing me carrying out my responsibilities. Id rather defend myself in court if they died of CO poisoning in the meantime than defend myself in an RTB hearing because I accessed the property without their permission.
I would not put myself at cost or time inconvenience for a tenant to complain or turn me away.

As for chimney cleaning, its in the landlords interest to protect their property, they could claim it back in costs, it'd be in their interests to pay, to at least ensure their insurance conditions are met. While I dont think its enshrined in law for it to be done, Im not sure for certain.

It does seem like something a tenant might be considered to pay towards, that said, open fires are a potential fire hazard and are mostly inefficient anyway.

Lets make this very clear If a chimney isn't cleaned regularly & correctly then there is a risk of CO poisoning. Some people burn rubbish, milk cartons or raid skips for wood. Some people burn lament flooring, Formica shelving or countertops & other horrible things in their fire. The non wood parts of these things form a hard plastic coating inside the chimney. These chimneys may need to be cleaned twice or three times per year.

You make a lot of uninformed assumptions above on when a landlord can enter without permission. The legislation is actually vague as to what an emergency is. There is absolutely no question that a landlord can break a door down if needs be to stop a leak. legislation doesn't state how bad the leak needs to be. A flood is defiantly covered but how bad of a leak is an emergency? I had an apartment where a hot water cylinder was leaking. It wasn't actually a bad leak. Water was turned off within hours. Two days later the front door couldn't be opened because the wooden flooring had buckled. The floor in the apartment had to be replaced. The tenant wouldn't consider the leak an emergency if the landlord broke in to stop it yet it was an emergency.

A gas boiler service is a health & safety thing thing. If tenant is playing silly beggars not letting RGI in I am totally within my rights to go in without their permission.

If they were difficult about gaining access for that, Id put the responsibility on the tenant by formally notifying them in writing that they were in breach of their lease and preventing me carrying out my responsibilities.

This in bold is not good enough. You can't pass responsibility for health & safety to a tenant. You'd look a daft twit in a coroners court saying "Oh I sent them a warning letter". It's your responsibility to break the door in if need be for safety matters. I promise you this, you can NOT fob off your LEGAL responsibility to a tenant.

As a landlord I'd rather explain myself to the RTB at a Tenancy Tribunal hearing why I broke down a door without permission than a coroners court explaining how it wasn't my fault that people died in my property.

Driving instructor on the radio a few weeks back telling a story of a learner driver nearly taking the doo roff a car, that was suddenly opened in front of her, rather than break the law & cross the solid white ling with no oncoming traffic.

I'll break that solid white line everytime.

Graham

I suspect you'd have a very hard time convincing an RTB tribunal that you had to kick the front door in to facilitate the emergency sweeping of a chimney.

[Deleted User]

Graham wrote: »

I suspect you'd have a very hard time convincing an RTB tribunal that you had to kick the front door in to facilitate the emergency sweeping of a chimney.

Not talking about OPs case here but cleaning the chimney is as important as a gas boiler service. It is a health & safety matter & people can die if it's not done. Obviously you try go through the proper channels first & arrange an appointment with the tenant. Someone asked in an earlier post "What if the Tenant refused to let you in". Refused to make an appointment & it's not covered by the lease. My answer is it is covered by the lease even if a chimney isn't mentioned in the lease. The lease doesn't mention every pipe & cable in the property yet I am responsible to ensure they are maintained & kept is a safe manor.

That aside I have no problem explaining myself to the RTB. Even if I didn't win, Id still rather explain myself to the RTB than a Coroner.

Graham

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Someone asked in an earlier post "What if the Tenant refused to let you in". Refused to make an appointment & it's not covered by the lease. My answer is it is covered by the lease even if a chimney isn't mentioned in the lease. The lease doesn't mention every pipe & cable in the property yet I am responsible to ensure they are maintained & kept is a safe manor.

Then the legal process is to give the tenant notice that they are breaching their obligations and follow up via the RTB.

Shelflife

OP what was the charge ?

I pay it as a landlord, my thinking is that if something happens (fire) I will be way more out of pocket than if I dont. It costs me about €35-€40 per house and I usually get my house and my Dads done at the same time so get a small discount.

Bad form to turn up unannounced and demand payment.

[Deleted User]

Shelflife wrote: »

OP what was the charge ?

I pay it as a landlord, my thinking is that if something happens (fire) I will be way more out of pocket than if I dont. It costs me about €35-€40 per house and I usually get my house and my Dads done at the same time so get a small discount.

Bad form to turn up unannounced and demand payment.

There are some wonderful landlords but sadly there are a few really terrible ones too.

1874

beauf wrote: »

If more thinking if there is a fire the safety angle. Secondly the landlord would be liable for the fire brigade charges for a chimney fire. Also the damage caused could be considerable.

Its worth it and in the landlords interest, but there is no reason to think necessarily that a landlord would be liable, Id be inclined to take the firebrigade opinion/explanation for any chimney fire.
If there was a chimney fire and a tenant had prevented access for cleaning or even if a cleaning took place and a fire still occured, its more likely down to usage, if they were burning something which was not considered acceptable (such as plastics or their rubbish), I know there is a rented house near me thats doing it), then its the person burning the items that has contributed to/started the fire and would be responsible and therefore liable. People are and should be responsible and accountable for their own actions, whether they did something knowingly or due to a lack of knowledge is not anyones fault except their own (ignorance of something/anything does not excuse someone of responsibility/liability.
I think whats coming next down the road (or should be) is tenant insurance for personal liability, which Ive read about in other jurisdictions, its better for the landlord and the tenant as everyone is covered in the event of accidents (including negligence), instead of obligating the landlord solely to pay for insurance.

beauf

The bill goes to the property owner AFAIK. I'm open to correction though.

1874

beauf wrote: »

The bill goes to the property owner AFAIK. I'm open to correction though.

I think it depends on the locality/council/fire service rules on that, and Id guess the caller/requester of the service. A fire caused by a tenant, how would that necessarily mean the cost would go to the property owner?? it wouldnt surprise me, as there seems to be substantial shirking of personal responsibility when it comes to many tenants and obligating a private individual not only to insure their own potential liabilities but those of others too!? Id say the main focus of that is from the state to limit their exposure to cost, as if it was an obligation for private tenants, then it could be an obligation for the state to fund those liabilities directly or indirectly for non private tenants.

Bill nye

1874 wrote: »

I think it depends on the locality/council/fire service rules on that, and Id guess the caller/requester of the service. A fire caused by a tenant, how would that necessarily mean the cost would go to the property owner?? it wouldnt surprise me, as there seems to be substantial shirking of personal responsibility when it comes to many tenants and obligating a private individual not only to insure their own potential liabilities but those of others too!? Id say the main focus of that is from the state to limit their exposure to cost, as if it was an obligation for private tenants, then it could be an obligation for the state to fund those liabilities directly or indirectly for non private tenants.

It's harder for the council to get the money from the tenants. They charge the property owner and leave it between the landlord and the tennant to figure out who pays in the end. But the council will keep after the property owner usually. As you said, each council differs with fire charges but it makes sense in theory as a tenant can up and leave easier than the LL can sell.