Tenants requesting reimbursement due to a faulty hotwater system

[Rudugger]

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

You can only say the landlord "failed to maintain the premises" if there was an unreasonable delay in restoring services. A week is reasonable for the purchase and installation of a hot water unit. Subsequently the landlord has maintained the premises.

There is no evidence, given the information provided, the landlord has not maintained the premises, unless you are implying the landlord has a crystal ball to tell the future of when the service was going to fail.

No need to create a story where there is none.

 

[Rudugger]

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.

Xenia has the most appropriate answer Dean. The only way to trump it would be to go in on half the bill with the tenant if you are close to a renewal of lease and you are worried about losing them (provided they are worth it and market conditions). That should demonstrate you are reasonable. If the tenant can't go with that then move on, they'll try it again.

 

[thatbum]

You can only say the landlord "failed to maintain the premises" if there was an unreasonable delay in restoring services. A week is reasonable for the purchase and installation of a hot water unit. Subsequently the landlord has maintained the premises.

There is no evidence, given the information provided, the landlord has not maintained the premises, unless you are implying the landlord has a crystal ball to tell the future of when the service was going to fail.

No need to create a story where there is none.

A week could be reasonable in the circumstances, or it might not be. The week itself is the starting piece of circumstantial evidence obviously - so not sure why you say there is "no evidence".

So are you saying you're confident enough to risk it at tribunal?

 

[datto]

OK. Say the heater uses 3 kw of power . Which it doesn't. 3 kw x 24 hours x 7 days x .25 c per kw = $126. Less what the tenant used. So 100 bucks is adequate compo if they can ptpve the heater was the culprit. $400 is just a scam for more money.

 

[D.T.]

OK. Say the heater uses 3 kw of power . Which it doesn't. 3 kw x 24 hours x 7 days x .25 c per kw = $126. Less what the tenant used. So 100 bucks is adequate compo if they can ptpve the heater was the culprit. $400 is just a scam for more money.

Best post in thread so far, let the maths prove it.

But, how do you know the old faulty one wasn't consuming an extraordinary amount of power as a result of being faulty?

Personally I think the $100 gesture previously provided (I perhaps would have offered a week's rent for the week they were inconvenienced) is sufficient.

 

[westminster]

Best post in thread so far, let the maths prove it.

But, how do you know the old faulty one wasn't consuming an extraordinary amount of power as a result of being faulty?

And this is what a few of us have been saying. For the MONTH prior to breaking it was quite probably using excessive power

 

[Rudugger]

A week could be reasonable in the circumstances, or it might not be. The week itself is the starting piece of circumstantial evidence obviously - so not sure why you say there is "no evidence".

So are you saying you're confident enough to risk it at tribunal?

Yep, at worst you pay what the tenants ask for. But there is a strong chance you get off with what you have already paid. Make them work for it, no need to bend over and spread'em for the tenant.

 

[datto]

I can't see a water heater having a heating element greater than 3kw. No way. My lounge room double bar heater is thick and 60 cm long (easy ladies!), yet its 2000 watts. So, I submit, the max power would have been 3 kw per hour.

For that water heater to be running full bore for one week straight and with the amount of pressure in it, either, the water would have been gushing out everywhere or the relief valve would have shot through the house walls or the system would have exploded and you'd see it on the 6 o'clock news.

So, did the tenant notify the PM the moment he/she saw the water heater leaking? If yes, they may be entitled to some compo. If tenant is seeking compo based on excess electricity, then it wouldn't be much and $100 would cover it.

 

[thatbum]

Yep, at worst you pay what the tenants ask for. But there is a strong chance you get off with what you have already paid. Make them work for it, no need to bend over and spread'em for the tenant.

No, at worst you go through multiple court/tribunal dates, taking up your time, spending extra money on PM representation fees - then your tenants getting further legal advice and getting the leave of tribunal to amend and further add to their claim.

Then you lose, but only after a few more adjournments for various reasons, and so around 3 to 5 court/tribunal dates later.

Still feel like you want to argue about it over the principle?

 

[Rudugger]

I feel your worst case scenario is exaggerated and over dramatized. I'm sorry Thatbum, but I'll agree to disagree with you at this point.

 

[justjudy]

Would you be able to get an opinion, [regarding the effects of old heater problem,] from the plumber who did the replacement for you ?

 

[SK Investments]

Have any of you read the spreadsheet? I'm almost certain that there is an increase in power consumption across the board not just on the one meter. I don't see how a faulty hot water service can increase power consumption on 2 separate meters unless it's a twin element hooked up to both peak and off peak power.

 

[joanmc]

Can they supply bills from the previous year to compare to? Maybe they just take longer hotter showers in the colder months. You really can't compare winter usage to summer usage.

 

[vaughan]

Is it an electric hot water system, or gas?

 

[Dean1337]

Thank you all for replying.

Here are the results. After calling the plumber and the electricity company, they both had explained to me that the hot water system is usually attached to tariff 33. This relates to meter 2 in my spreadsheet. The first bill in the spreadsheet was from the place they previously lived in. The second, third and fourth bill is from my property.

During the time when the hot water system was faulty, the second meter didn't really spike at all however the first meter did. The second meter only dropped on the fourth bill because the new hot water system was install and is more efficient.

Hence the increase in power usage was not from the hot water system.

I told my property manager to advise my tenants of my findings and I have yet to receive a reply.

It just goes to show, it pays to be thorough.

 

[Salvatore1]

Have I missed something but did I read it took 1 week to fix the issue of no hot water? It is classed as an essential service and has to be fixed asap, next day! If you ended in the tribunal is would cost you more that $400 in compensation! Plus agent attendance fee.

 

[Paul@PFI]

Have any of you read the spreadsheet? I'm almost certain that there is an increase in power consumption across the board not just on the one meter. I don't see how a faulty hot water service can increase power consumption on 2 separate meters unless it's a twin element hooked up to both peak and off peak power.

I had a solar HW in my old IP. Stupid thing was connected to off peak. So it would heat water in sunlight then maintain heat overnight. Until the off peak trigger device failed and so it didn't heat at all overnight. Temp fell constantly until tepid in mornings. Hot by midday when repairman checked it of course. Agent thought tenant was being difficult.

Solution was to switch to a timed mains electricity NOT off peak. So its basically on all time except the switch for supply is cut outside those times. So it heats during sunlight THEN timer kicks in around 8pm- 7am and it would maintain heat and warm water overnight summer or winter. Electricity use was higher but I had zero tenant complaints.

Took a while to figure that stupid HWS issue out.

Oh and the time the solar sprung a pressure leak and spouted water 3meters into air and down the drain to stormwater on street. Nobody noticed till a neighbour called me to explain my new water feature..Days after it started...That quarter I had a ridiculous water bill. Lucky it was at Xmas when tenants were away so they weren't affected.

Tip : Solar in IP's is a dick move for the landlord. Cheaper to put in gas HWS

 

[SK Investments]

Tip : Solar in IP's is a dick move for the landlord. Cheaper to put in gas HWS

My mother has just moved out of her ppor, it has gas boosted solar, I'm considering pulling the solar off as 2 tank sensors have packed it in and need replacing, the pump controller just stops altogether and you don't know it's not working unless you check it regularly.

With 3 sensors on the unit it just screams maintenance headache as an IP.