Property Management - Gas Issue

Hi All,

Just wanted to ask for advice on an issue I've recently encountered with my PM.

I was asked to approve a job request for a "Gas Tank Inspection" recently, with the description being "
Please inspect gas tank connections. Tenant reported excessive use of gas bottles, ie 2 bottles in 6months. Could be a leak?"

I replied about 4 business days later, saying that I was not going to approve this, as the tennant had recently sent through a myriad of minor maintenance requests.

However, to my shock, the PM emailed me back saying "due to the nature of the issue and it being gas, we had to send someone out to look at this, as tenant states he has used a lot of gas, the report came back from the maintenance plumber there is no leaks at the time for the inspection. He suggested it be a tenants account and also to watch the guys who are changing the bottles."

Firstly, I never commissioned for an inspection to take place and secondly, there was no issue. Should I be out of pocket for this? Or do I have the right to ask for the tenant to be slugged the invoice.

Simply does not make sense for a landlord to cop all this **** - what's to stop the tennant saying "I think I may have a gas leak every 2nd week?!"

Cheers,
Dalts

 

typically, the tenant can request anything, they can request a gas check every day if they want,

and if there is a problem from a landlord perspective, you have to pay for it

however if there is no fault, or the fault is the tenants fault, eg their appliance is faulty, they pay

a good pm will definitely tell them, that if its their fault, they are liable

 

If its a gas leak, it'd be something I'd act on pretty quickly because the alternative scenario is fatal.

However if its not leaking, user error, or caused by one of their own appliances, then would be creating an invoice for tenant to reimburse us the cost of the visit.

 

No responsible person should ignore the possibility of a gas leak once the suspicion is reported.

Next time approve the inspection on the condition that, if a leak is discovered you will pay, if no leak discovered the tenant pays.

 

Why did it take 4 business days to reply to a possible gas leak.
I would have thought most P.Ms would have acted on this straight away

 

This, and a gas leak can be an emergency. Regardless if it is a leak or not.

Would you rather a hole in the side of your property from an explosion or the tenant to pay for the cost of the "maintenance plumber"?

 

spot on, a gas leak can be fatal and can explode, definitely needs to be checked out
as the PM can also legitimately say its urgent maintenace

 

Could be a faulty regulator allowing more gas than required, had this in an old property I use to manage and found to be the cause when tenants complained their usage increased dramatically but there were no leaks (also had that inspected for).

 

It took me 4 days to respond to the PM's message as I was away on holidays.

However, I was only notified that someone had been sent to inspect the issue AFTER I emailed them to say I wouldn't be approving it. Not the best communication from my perspective...

 

Thanks all for all the responses! Very much appreciated.

 

Doesn't using a lot of gas imply the need to change a gas bottle at a higher rate of frequency?

And doesn't leaking gas smell with the additive they add as a safety measure? Furthermore, if the gas bottle is empty (as implied) there is no risk.

 

Of what relevance is the number of previous requests?

 

it can show behavioural pattern of the tenant being petty or having a habit of requesting unnecessary maintenance

 

But that's not relevant, either, surely. This request - to check for a gas leak - is either valid or not valid, irrespective of past behaviour.

If this request isn't valid, you're declining it because you don't think there's any need for a test for a gas leak (which as mentioned previously would be a huge call!), not because of the tenant's prior behaviour.

For example, if the hot water service broke and there was no hot water to the property, you can't decline to repair it because you're annoyed by their previous requests, that you considered petty.

 

Well, you could.. you'd just get into some serious trouble.

 

If you look at my previous posts, I've said it is considered urgent and I would definitely do it.
But going by the tenants previous behaviour, I would absolutely ensure they were aware that if there is no fault to be found, they would be liable.

So the way i handle this request is dependant on their previous behaviour

 

Wasn't having a go at you! I queried Dalts, who said they wouldn't approve it based on previous requests.

Agreed that tenants paying if no fault sounds like a reasonable approach, but does anybody know if that's actually legal? @thatbum ?

 

Definitely legal, and actually specifies it in the standard template lease

Thats true, and thats where a PM can act as a filter to help determine seriousness of issues - generally I wouldnt forward spurious stuff onto LL, only stuff i actually thought should be actioned.

 

and thats almost my number one way of telling how good a PM is, and whether they are working FOR ME, or just working.
I dont expect them to deny any non urgent requests just because its going to save money, but if there are reasonable alternatives , to consider them, and to let me know

thankfully, my current batch, which took years to find, are very good , and im quite happy with