On Feb 17, 9:49*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:26:49 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

A kitchen is either fit for purpose or it is not. *If not, the
landlord has a duty to fix it.
There's a huge gap between "unfit for purpose" and "functional but
depressingly dilapidated". Landlords are also prone to install very
cheap appliances, which are functional, but much less use than the ones
an owner occupier might select.

IME most people over 25 have bought their own appliances and do not
live in accomodation furnished by the landlord.

It is quite common for a fitted hob and cooker to be provided by the
landlord, and I've known several landlords to offer fully-furnished
family-sized properties at the bottom end of the market.

You make it sound like appliances are a once-in-a-lifetime purchase,
that once you have them they follow you around for the rest of your
life. In reality they require removal when moving house, and often
require replacement within several years, so the poor do not
necessarily carry a full set of high-quality appliances around with
them.



*The cost need not be
all that great so long as you buy second-hand and are prepared to wait
for a bargain.

Lol. How long are you typically prepared to wait with an empty stomach
and dirty clothes? There is actually more of a market in my experience
for *landlords* to make the capital investment in reasonable second-
hand appliances, and then add it onto the weekly rent, because other
than eliminating the up-front cost for those who have little money,
landlords are usually in a better position to have contacts and
knowledge, easy transportation, etc.