Water damage to tenants property

[thatbum]

I don't agree with that. Is it also the landlords responsibility if the door is kicked down and the tenant has their things stolen? Or someone climbs in an open window and steals the car keys and the car? That is why tenants should pay insurance.

The difference between those scenarios is that some random criminal caused the loss to the tenant - not something wrong with the house.

Note if there was something wrong with the door or window (locks broken) that allowed the criminal to get in, then the tenants might have a partial case against the landlord for the loss as well.

 

[thatbum]

well if the tenant doesn't have contents insurance then they are out of pocket aren't they. its not someone else's responsibility just because they don't bother to get insurance.

Same as if you own a house and it burns down and you don't have insurance. You lose.

The same line of reasoning would mean that if a tenant doesn't pay rent and then deliberately damages your property, then the landlord is out of pocket and should have had landlord's insurance. Too bad?

It ignores the obligations under the lease agreement.

 

[Munchkin]

The same line of reasoning would mean that if a tenant doesn't pay rent and then deliberately damages your property, then the landlord is out of pocket and should have had landlord's insurance. Too bad?

It ignores the obligations under the lease agreement.

deliberately is the key word there. as someone said earlier if the owner's negligence caused it then maybe they should be liable. This doesn't soundike negligence, just bad luck.

The owner didn't purposefully go in and damage the tenant's property.

 

[Munchkin]

But yes an owner should still have insurance, you'd be stupid not to.

 

[Munchkin]

The difference between those scenarios is that some random criminal caused the loss to the tenant - not something wrong with the house.

Note if there was something wrong with the door or window (locks broken) that allowed the criminal to get in, then the tenants might have a partial case against the landlord for the loss as well.

I think this would depend on if the landlord knew about the damage. I would think it would also be on the tenant to make sure any damage to doors or windows was reported so the landlord had a chance to fix it.

 

[kathryn d]

The landlord is required to fix problems after they become aware of them. That is what it seems to have happened. End of story.

It is a condition of our leases that tenants have insurance. Our insurnace (in Canada) will not cover anything of a tenants..no matter what the reason.

And we certainly wouldn't pay for it.

 

[JPS25]

Thanks for all the replies

As far as I know no damage to the fridge freezer how come it never got damaged I dont know from recollection I think the tap was about 3 foot or so from the ground but not certain.

They came home from holiday to find water all over the kitchen and family area. Table and chairs fine it is just a wooden china cabernet that has swollen at the base due to the water is what we were told. We have been sent a photo by the PM. The floor was still drying out but the tiles look like they have water marks left on them and in the kitchen the silicone around the base of the cupboards was looking like it was cracking as it was drying out.

The PM had their own plumber attend and he replaced the tap. The builder spoke to him and said he told them it was a washer causing the leak. Tap has never been used so how it leaked I don't know. So they said it is not covered under waranty but are prepared to pick up the plumbers bill and make good the silicone.

We have told the PM to tell the tenants we will pay thier access on their Insurance. We also have full cover LL insurance.

Waiting to hear back from the PM

But yes a good question was raised by Vaughan as to why the fridge in front of the tap did not get any water in it ???

Sorry for the late response having problems with internet

Thanks again everyone

 

[vaughan]

So you're probably going to have to make a claim on your building insurance to fix the water damaged kitchen and floor. Most likely water will have seeped under the tiles so there could be problems later on.

Perhaps the tenants will offer to pay your excess?

 

[mattysavager]

I just can't accept that the owner should have any liability for the tenant's belongings.

Not having contents insurance is moronic. 4 of my team have been robbed within the last 12 months.

Thatbum - why should the tenants not have contents insurance? It's obviously not the owner's fault that the tap leaked. I recommended that they offer to pay the tenant's excess, which they have done (purely as a sign of good faith).

If the tenant had been complaining about this tap dripping for months and it hadn't been fixed - then might be a different story.

Should the owner be responsible if a storm knocks over a tree in the yard and it lands on the tenant's car?

 

[Ed Barton]

I just can't accept that the owner should have any liability for the tenant's belongings.

It's not what you accept that matters. It's what a court accepts that matters. When both sides are insured they will sort out a settlement based on past cases and who has the best negotiating techniques.

Not having contents insurance is moronic. 4 of my team have been robbed within the last 12 months.

Thatbum - why should the tenants not have contents insurance? It's obviously not the owner's fault that the tap leaked. I recommended that they offer to pay the tenant's excess, which they have done (purely as a sign of good faith).

If the tenant had been complaining about this tap dripping for months and it hadn't been fixed - then might be a different story.

Should the owner be responsible if a storm knocks over a tree in the yard and it lands on the tenant's car?

Force majeure.

 

[JPS25]

Hi Ed and everyone

Tenant has contents insurance and we have full LL Insurance through Allianz

Tap was not dripping to their knowledge when they left to go on holiday

The tap in question is one behind the fridge freezer space

They have a normal fridge that does not conect to this type of tap

Therefore the tap has never ever been turned on

House was handed over 24th Feb this year and tenant (husband) moved in same day his family followed soon after in the March

Thanks everyone for your help it is very much appreciated

 

[willair]

Should the owner be responsible if a storm knocks over a tree in the yard and it lands on the tenant's car?

That's a good question,it happened to me last week during a few days of high wind in Brisbane,and it was a old mgb late 1960's,the tenant has been there 7 years,cut the tree up on Sunday,the back of the mg is a bit bent,just have to wait till rent day to se what happening,but i,m not paying for nothing..

 

[Scott No Mates]

Will, isn't that what insurers are for? Let the tenant lodge their claim & fight it out with your insurers.

 

[willair]

Will, isn't that what insurers are for? Let the tenant lodge their claim & fight it out with your insurers.

Scott after what i went through during the floods in Brisbane and we had flood insurance just not for that type of flood,and still are going through i don't trust any insurance company,..plus the tenant is not worried he said if i want the the MGB for 1k for spare parts for the one i already have..it's just a body no motor gearbox just doors internal brakes wire..

 

[thatbum]

That's a good question,it happened to me last week during a few days of high wind in Brisbane,and it was a old mgb late 1960's,the tenant has been there 7 years,cut the tree up on Sunday,the back of the mg is a bit bent,just have to wait till rent day to se what happening,but i,m not paying for nothing..

Probably not the landlord's liability unless there was something wrong with the tree.

Its just one of those classic force of nature situations.

 

[tom32]

I reckon thatbum is right on this.

I understand everyone saying it is just one of those things, not the landlords fault, but if the roles were reversed? say:

Tennant had a large fish tank in house that had been recently purchased from justpets a reputable fishtank company that does not warrant for consequential loss only replacement of the fish tank, guess who pays for the new carpet when the tank ***** iteself upon being filled up for the first time? The tennant.

When in contract you do not have to be negligent to be liable. Negligence is only required for liability when you are not in contract.

As others have said, they could claim it on their own insurance who would only pursue the landlord / landlords insurer anyway. If you think lawyers are bad, imagine insurance companies lawyers when acting against you!

On those who say, who would not have contents insurance? I did not have it for several years as it does not represent good value when you have only low value items. You pay very little extra as you move from 20k to 50k to 100k etc. Only the security requirements seem to get tighter as you go to the 200k mark etc. The value per dollar insured gets better the more you insure.

When you are starting out a family and presumably do not have designer furniture and 100inch TV sets, not much point insuring in my opinion.

What is the worst that can happen, a fire destroys the lot? Most claims will only be a partial loss except fire and flood anyway which often result in a complete loss. As others have said; flood you are probably stuffed anyway with or without insurance, unless storm and again this is usually only partial loss...

I have an interesting recent insurance anecdote; My daughter completely destroyed (well about 30% of its value to fix but it was serious) our month old lounge.... The leather fixer bloke said to ring our insurer as it may be covered. They said they do not cover accidental damage... I said, what the hell do I have insurance for then? Deliberate damage? Vandalising my own home, perhaps? What if I left the oven on and the joint burnt down? Presumably that is accidental and I am not insured? He said I would be because that is fire.... I agree 100% with willair. Do not trust insurance. It seems they will tell you, you are covered for everything except the loss event you are trying to claim for if they possibly can.

 

[Munchkin]

Accidental damage is an extra you choose when you take out your insurance. Seems half the trouble with insurance is people not understanding their policies.

 

[kathryn d]

It always amazes me how fast everyone is willing to pay for a tenants "whatever" in case the dear tenant is inconvenienced in anyway whatsoever.

The tenant went away. If they stayed home they would have been able to shut of the water tap asap.

Landlord did nothing wrong.The tenant should be paying for the excess of the landlord's out of pocket expenses.

That won't happen either..so just have each party claim on their own insurance policy.

 

[thatbum]

It always amazes me how fast everyone is willing to pay for a tenants "whatever" in case the dear tenant is inconvenienced in anyway whatsoever.

The tenant went away. If they stayed home they would have been able to shut of the water tap asap.

Landlord did nothing wrong.The tenant should be paying for the excess of the landlord's out of pocket expenses.

It amazes me how fast some landlords are in rationalising that every single bit of damage to their properties must somehow be the responsibility of the tenant.

The landlord is contractually obligated to provide a functional house. If the house actually was functional and fit for its purpose, then it wouldn't have leaked water everywhere and damaged the tenant's furniture.

Of course the landlord didn't do anything wrong - but that's not why he is liable to the tenant. It's the plumber or builder's fault, but certainly the tenant is entitled to claim against the landlord at first instance, because that's who the tenant has a contract with.

If I was the landlord, I would pay out the tenant for the damage, and then be seeking that exact amount plus my own damages right from the plumber/builder/their insurer.

 

[kathryn d]

It amazes me how fast some landlords are in rationalising that every single bit of damage to their properties must somehow be the responsibility of the tenant.

The landlord is contractually obligated to provide a functional house. If the house actually was functional and fit for its purpose, then it wouldn't have leaked water everywhere and damaged the tenant's furniture.

Of course the landlord didn't do anything wrong - but that's not why he is liable to the tenant. It's the plumber or builder's fault, but certainly the tenant is entitled to claim against the landlord at first instance, because that's who the tenant has a contract with.

If I was the landlord, I would pay out the tenant for the damage, and then be seeking that exact amount plus my own damages right from the plumber/builder/their insurer.

Sounds like a tenant or a PM's point of view...instead of a landlord's point of view.

The house sounded like it was in great shape when the tenant left.