Landlords who don't allow working from home?

Marcusm · 10-07-2020 8:32pm

Graham wrote: »

I think the suggestion is 'working from home' and 'running a business from home' are the same thing.

I think that the three policy extracts shown demonstrate clearly that so long as the home is a place from which the employee alone carries out suitable tasks which do not involve the holding of stock, meeting of customers etc, that they are covered under the home policy.

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Your employer should do a health and safety assessment of your at home workplace.

This is true and is one of the reasons why many employers will have distributed working from home questionnaires. They continue to have a responsibility to ensure that you have necessary equipment or else to preclude you from working. If, for example, you incur an injury to your neck by spending 7 hours a day on a kitchen chair staring at a laptop on a flat table then they will be exposed. They should provide you with info as to how to sit properly, raise the laptop up to your eye level with a stand or a pile of books etc.

Any sensible employer will make some effort to head off claims from employees.

Third_Echelon · 10-07-2020 8:41pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Just because something doesn't enter anyone's head, does not mean it is a live issue. Most house insurance policies only ensure goods for personal use.
The trouble with working from home is that work items are not covered by the household insurance. There may be no cover if the laptop is stolen from the house for example.

Your work laptop should be owned by your company. You can't insure someone else's property. Any theft etc. is covered by work's insurance, not my personal renters/content insurance.

It's a non-issue.

ED E · 10-07-2020 8:44pm

No need for clients, it's a workplace.

ED E · 10-07-2020 8:46pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Dear God.

Strictly speaking your CEO could be criminally charged should you be injured I suspect. #IANAL

Graham · 10-07-2020 9:00pm

Marcusm wrote: »

I think that the three policy extracts shown demonstrate clearly that so long as the home is a place from which the employee alone carries out suitable tasks which do not involve the holding of stock, meeting of customers etc, that they are covered under the home policy.

That's certainly my reading of it, I can't pretend I've checked every insurer though.

Mrs OBumble · 10-07-2020 9:18pm

Graham wrote: »

I think the suggestion is 'working from home' and 'running a business from home' are the same thing.

Ahh, no.

Working and running a business are the same thing, unless you are a public servant.

Graham · 10-07-2020 9:37pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, no.

Working and running a business are the same thing, unless you are a public servant.

Could be. Can't say I'd agree with either translations

lucernarian · 11-07-2020 12:03am

Mr.S wrote: »

This is by far the stupidest reply I've seen on A&P. Judging by who liked your post, really seals the deal.

Good to see that called out tbh!

dennyk · 11-07-2020 9:36am

Mr.S wrote: »

Must...not...take...bait.

How you believe that is beyond me.

From the perspective of what entails "working from home" and the impacts such work might have, it's not entirely inaccurate, though. It's really the nature of your work itself rather than whether you're an employee or self-employed that would come into play. Someone doing, say, hairstyling or in-person counseling or building furniture or packing and shipping inventory from their rented home poses a risk of liability issues, planning violations, and general disruption whether they are ultimately working for themselves or someone else. Someone doing remote IT work or coding or writing or telephone customer service or any other work that just involves working on a computer and/or talking on the phone wouldn't generally be a liability risk, wouldn't be causing disruptions due to a bunch of foot or vehicle traffic in the neighbourhood, and wouldn't usually be in violation of planning codes, whether they are working for themselves or someone else.

An Ri rua · 11-07-2020 4:57pm

daithi7 wrote: »

I can fully understand it in 'room to let' letting, as the house owner is then providing both an office & a residential home.

On a general letting , I think it's debatable also tbh, I mean there's no doubt that providing a dwelling that provides a home office/ working solution that is utilised is going to get far more wear & tear than just providing a residential dwelling.... it could be legitimate grounds for a landlord (who was agreeing to home working) to be able to charge more legimately surely?!

I mean many workers get an allowance from their employers if they work from home, I think it's perfectly reasonable that a landlord charges more to facilitate this also.

That's just bonkers. So do you declare whether you're a night worker or day worker then? Or if you're doing a few all nighters studying for Open University online and working during the day, then full disclosure with your big brother landlord so he can screw you for another few quid?
On what level do you think that's rational?

An Ri rua · 11-07-2020 5:04pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Hmmmmm, perhaps the landlord has been stung by hookers before??

There's likely a cream for that.

YellowBucket · 11-07-2020 5:09pm

I had a landlord in Dublin pre 2007 who threatened to evict me because I casually mentioned that I was writing a thesis. I was working full time and had been renting from her for 2 years, paid on time, kept the place extremely well.

She just went on this huge rant about no students.

Landlords are just people renting out houses / apartments, so like the general population you’ll get the odd issue here and there.

Landlords who don't allow working from home?

Comments