Tenants requesting reimbursement due to a faulty hotwater system

Dean1337

Dean1337

Hi all,

I was hoping for some advice on a particular issue.

Around July, one of my properties had a faulty hot water system. As a result I replaced the hot water system. Since my tenants had to put up with cold water for one week, I decided to reimburse the tenants $100 for the inconvenience.

Six months later, they sent me an email asking to be reimbursed around $400 because one electricity bill was 40% higher than their usual bills. They claim that this bill is higher due to the faulty hot water system. They have provided their bills for the last 12 months and it is pretty clear that this bill is significantly higher than the others and it was around the same time that the hot water system was faulty.

How would the you handle this situation?
 
Do you believe that the higher bill was due to the 1 week that the old damaged unit was still in place?

Difficult decision - was the 1 week between damage and the new unit an unreasonably long period of time? Or did you jump straight on it (and hence did everything within your power to minimise their loss?)

Also remembering that the tenant had the option of switching off the HWS at the fuse box once it was confirmed broken.

Any chance that bill is higher due to increased use of aircon, ect?
 
I'd compare the bill to the same period last year, it was July, I assume they were using heating during that time.

I think they would have a difficult time proving that it was the hot water system. Was the issue a faulty thermostat causing the heating element to stay on?

If you want to keep things good you could offer a peace settlement but I wouldn't pay the entire difference. Bear in mind that the cost per kilowatt has gone up significantly, so compare the kw usage of the winter quarter in 2013 to 2014 not just the dollar amount of the bill.
 
Tenants are entitled to compensation for maintenance not being done Quick enough. This Is tenancy legislation in most states to my understanding.

However one week is more than reasonable time so this tenant would not be entitled to any compensation via this law.

You have also demonstrated good faith in by compensating the tenant $100.
Personally I would not do any more than that. The onus is on the tenants to prove their claim rather than you looking into what is reasonable and what is not.

I would allow this one to go to tribunal hearing, you already have the two above factors stacked in your favour - my guess would be that no more money will be owed to the tenants.
 
Last edited:
They probably had a hydro set up that month which accounts for the higher bill.

Jack the rent up 20% and tell them to take that it to the tribunal as well.

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. And they have the nerve to ask for more money. An extra 400 bucks for a weeks electricity. That's a joke. They could never prove it. The electricity meter would have been spinning its teets off for that to happen. lol.
 
People who are unable to create money try all sorts of ways to take money from other people.
We once had a tenant who took us to a tribunal hearing to claim compensation for the grass in the backyard being too damp. He claimed that mould growing on the grass had caused his dog to get an allergy.
He wanted to be compensated for all the vet bills.
That case got nowhere and neither will this one - let them prove it!
 
They should be speaking with the electricity company. I had a similar issue with water usage at one of my properties, there was an under the property leaking pipe, which we fixed as soon as we knew about it. Was able to email the water authority who waived the additional water usage for that period of time.
 
Xenia IM said:
I would allow this one to go to tribunal hearing, you already have the two above factors stacked in your favour - my guess would be that no more money will be owed to the tenants.
Click to expand...

Except wouldn't it cost more to pay the PM to go to tribunal than to pay the claim?

Personally I can see that the tenants having a prima facie cause of action, that seems reasonably arguable. There's at least a danger of them winning.
 
thatbum said:
Personally I can see that the tenants having a prima facie cause of action, that seems reasonably arguable. There's at least a danger of them winning.
Click to expand...

Unfortunate for the tenant, but how is the landlord responsible for the extra usage?

I remember a case about a tenant who wanted to get the landlord to change an old but maintained and functioning hot water system to a newer, more energy efficient system because the tenant wanted to save money. IIRC the case was not successful: landlord is not required to supply the most efficient technology, only provide something that works.
 
Lack of hot water for a week is a pretty significant inconvenience. I would find $100 insulting. But given they have left it 6 months, tough luck unless they can prove the cause of the price spike.
 
Hoffy said:
Lack of hot water for a week is a pretty significant inconvenience. I would find $100 insulting. But given they have left it 6 months, tough luck unless they can prove the cause of the price spike.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't over a period where there was lack of hot water.

It's the tenant's belief that the failing hot water system lead to increased energy consumption, which they have to pay for. The only way that would happen is if there was a leak and hot water started to drain out, causing the heaters to run more often. It's does't need much more than a steady drip to make a difference.

I'm interested in how this turns out.
 
vaughan said:
Unfortunate for the tenant, but how is the landlord responsible for the extra usage?
Click to expand...

Because it seems there's some evidence at least that it could be reasonable losses arising from the landlord's failure to maintain the premises. Or that the $100 wasn't "enough" and that cause of action is further pursued as an alternative head of claim.

That's just two off the top of my head.

I find it pretty concerning some of the dismissive attitudes of some of the landlords here when its clear there has been a loss suffered by the tenants and there's at least some link to the landlord's obligations.
 
vaughan said:
The issue isn't over a period where there was lack of hot water.

It's the tenant's belief that the failing hot water system lead to increased energy consumption, which they have to pay for. The only way that would happen is if there was a leak and hot water started to drain out, causing the heaters to run more often. It's does't need much more than a steady drip to make a difference.

I'm interested in how this turns out.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is what the issue is about. Prior to the HWS dying it may have been limping along and using excessive power.

As a landlord I would probably be inclined to offer 50-100% of the amount asked.
 
vaughan said:
The issue isn't over a period where there was lack of hot water.

It's the tenant's belief that the failing hot water system lead to increased energy consumption, which they have to pay for. The only way that would happen is if there was a leak and hot water started to drain out, causing the heaters to run more often. It's does't need much more than a steady drip to make a difference.

I'm interested in how this turns out.
Click to expand...

That's why I said they need to prove the cause of the price spike to get any more money.

In addition I commented that the $100 offered at the time was insulting.
 
Thanks you all for replying,

vaughan said:
It's the tenant's belief that the failing hot water system lead to increased energy consumption, which they have to pay for. The only way that would happen is if there was a leak and hot water started to drain out, causing the heaters to run more often. It's does't need much more than a steady drip to make a difference.
Click to expand...

This is what pretty much what happened. I think it was overheating causing to steam out of the overflow value.

I've attached an excel sheet summarizing the bills they have provided. Bill 3 is the one to note.

My actions are going to be as follows:
1. Talk to property manager and discuss options.
2. Ask the tenant to provide a bill from the same period last year.
3. Talk to power company and help explain the bills. I'll see if I can get a reimbursement from like simtr did with the water company. They probably will not provide a discount but worth a try.
 

Attachments

  • tenantClaimBills.xlsx
    10.2 KB · Views: 104
Which meter was the hot water running off? Is meter 2 the off peak?
In that case the usage for bill 2 and 3 are very similar.

I also note that it is not only one meter but both that have an Increase in usage across bills 2 & 3.

How do you know that they didn't have extra guests during this period?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Water Usage upon tenant vacating procedure NSW
Replies
5
Views
1K
Jaggannath
Jaggannath
C
Plumbing issue / drain blockage - please assist
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Propagate
P
B
Tenant compensation
Replies
6
Views
2K
blueskymine
B
P
Really difficult tenants--any advice?
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
13K
hobo
H
I
Faulty Hot Water System
Replies
6
Views
1K
fisherman
F
Back
Top