Good luck with that...
Water damage to tenants property
- Thread starter JPS25
- Start date
Good luck with that...
If a tenant of ours filled a fish tank and that fish tank failed and damaged our house, we would not ask the tenant to pay for new carpet. We would file a claim with our insurer. If our insurance company then decided to try to get the money from the tenant that is their business, and nothing to do with us.
This happened with some malicious damage a tenant did to a house a few years back. We made a claim, insurance company paid to fix and repaint the damaged walls. We paid the excess, but we know the insurance company were going after the tenant to recoup the money spent on fixing and repainting. Whether they ever got anything from the tenant is none of our business.
It's the tenants responsibility to bring issues like leaking taps, etc. to the LL's attention.
If the tap was fine at the time that the tenant moved in, and the LL was not informed about the leak then it legally should not be the LL's fault.
Taps that don't leak don't suddenly start leaking without being touched - something is not right there.
Could the leak have been there and the tenant ignored it?
Anyway if the tenant has contents insurance then they should claim.
If the tap was fine at the time that the tenant moved in, and the LL was not informed about the leak then it legally should not be the LL's fault.
Taps that don't leak don't suddenly start leaking without being touched - something is not right there.
Could the leak have been there and the tenant ignored it?
Anyway if the tenant has contents insurance then they should claim.
Do you understand that insurance doesn't change a party's legal rights?
Whether or not a party chooses to use insurance or not use/have insurance - its not an answer to a legal question of liability to say, "use your insurance".
It doesn't look like I'm convincing many people, so hopefully I'll have a transcript from a decision soon where I'm acting for a tenant in a similar situation. Ceiling caved in and destroyed a whole bunch of the tenant's belongings - looks to be some builder negligence.
And if that is the case, and the builder can be proved negligent, then he should be sued by the tenant's insurer. But if the tenant didn't bother to have insurance, that is their problem.
This is how I thought it worked too.
More likely the tenant/tenant's insurance will chase the landlord who will refer it to his insurance who will then chase the builder.
Hi JPS25,
have you notify the Strata management about this water damage issue ?
I was lucky that in one of my IP the shower was leaking and causing water damage to the floor below (garage) so I was lucky that they agreed to replace the tiling and apply waterproofing all without additional cost.
this is due to the building insurance
have you notify the Strata management about this water damage issue ?
I was lucky that in one of my IP the shower was leaking and causing water damage to the floor below (garage) so I was lucky that they agreed to replace the tiling and apply waterproofing all without additional cost.
this is due to the building insurance
Thatbum I'm in full agreeance and I don't get everyone who keeps saying "tenant should have insurance".
I'm glad the OP has come to a sensible agreement with the tenant.
Yes we might not know the full story here BUT if your IP property causes damage to your tenant or his items then Landlord is responsible.
Examples:
- hole in roof causing water damage to tenants items. The water soaked insulation causing ceiling to fall down on Tenants belongings in lounge room. True case in Perth - landlord liable for any damage and cleaning of Tenants items.
- faulty wiring sparking a fire (you'd better hope no person gets burnt)
- improperly waterproofed house which caused damp and mould to destroy tenants clothes and health. This is a true case from NSW that went to Tribunal and Tenant won.
You, the Landlord, have a legal obligation to provide a property which meets or exceeds certain guidelines of health, safety and habitable ness. If your property damages your tenants property you are liable.
I'm glad the OP has come to a sensible agreement with the tenant.
Yes we might not know the full story here BUT if your IP property causes damage to your tenant or his items then Landlord is responsible.
Examples:
- hole in roof causing water damage to tenants items. The water soaked insulation causing ceiling to fall down on Tenants belongings in lounge room. True case in Perth - landlord liable for any damage and cleaning of Tenants items.
- faulty wiring sparking a fire (you'd better hope no person gets burnt)
- improperly waterproofed house which caused damp and mould to destroy tenants clothes and health. This is a true case from NSW that went to Tribunal and Tenant won.
You, the Landlord, have a legal obligation to provide a property which meets or exceeds certain guidelines of health, safety and habitable ness. If your property damages your tenants property you are liable.
Why?
Would they ever offer to pay any of your expenses?
The same thing that happens when anyone else doesn't have insurance.
The tenant has a sodden pile of garbage that was once their valued (but not valued enough to insure)possessions.
I suppose their next step will be to have a sob on today tonight and get the public to bail them out, thats how it usually works isnt it?
Yes, the landlord does, however the landlord is not at the property every single day and couldn't possibly know if there is a fault, which is why the tenants obligations are to report issues. If a reported issue is not attended to, then the landlord is at fault. Otherwise it's just an unfortunate situation and tenant should have insurance to cover their belongings. To take it to the extreme, what about a tenant who has $100K worth of personal belongings, of which the landlord knows nothing about so couldn't have insurance for even if they wanted to. Landlord has contents included in their insurance of only $20K to cover carpets, curtains etc. If the building burnt down due to a fault unknown to the landlord, the landlord is now required to fork out $100K to the tenant for the belongings the tenant did not have insured?
Are tenants not capable of being responsible of anything these days, even their own personal items?
Are tenants not capable of being responsible of anything these days, even their own personal items?
The amount of calls we get from tenants when their own appliances (fridge, washing machine, kettle) break is astonishing. Many tenants can't understand why they should change a light bulb, or clean the windows. You're not living in a hotel people! Take some responsibility.
If a tenant owned this property and the tap leaked, and destroyed their valuable antiques (which of course aren't insured), who would they call?
We tell tenants when they sign up that the owner has no insurable interest in their belongings, and has no interest in replacing stolen/damaged belongings if that should occur.
And for the people who don't have insurance, I have zero empathy when they lose all their possessions in a fire/flood/burglary. You choose to risk it.
This is of course on the proviso that the landlord satisfies their obligation to remedy any maintenance that is REPORTED by the tenants, or noticed during routine inspections. If this is done, then it's bad luck tenants.
"A lack of planning and consideration on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine"
The same thing that happens when anyone else doesn't have insurance.
The tenant has a sodden pile of garbage that was once their valued (but not valued enough to insure)possessions.
I suppose their next step will be to have a sob on today tonight and get the public to bail them out, thats how it usually works isnt it?
Insurance just act on your behalf, same as motor accidents if you dont have insurance you send a letter of demand to the liable party and pursue them yourself through the courts if necessary.
If you have insurance they pay you then pursue the liable party on your behalf through the courts.
The outcome is the same in that the liable party must pay. The only difference is who chases them for money
The same thing that happens when anyone else doesn't have insurance.
The tenant has a sodden pile of garbage that was once their valued (but not valued enough to insure)possessions.
I suppose their next step will be to have a sob on today tonight and get the public to bail them out, thats how it usually works isnt it?
As Zepth mentioned, the only difference is who chases the landlord up for mooney.
So actually the next step might be the landlord being served with a court/tribunal summons with a claim amount plus court costs/legal costs, if that is the attitude of a landlord in that situation.
Which doesn't preclude a tenant contacting Today Tonight as well I suppose. I think sometimes they do enjoy putting on a role reversing "landlords from hell" segment every once and a while.
Hi everyone
No we knew nothing about it until the Monday when the PM phoned. Tenants had been away for school hols returned Saturday midday to find the mess. As far as we are aware nothing had been reported about a leak to the PM previously nor as far as I believe had there been signs of one before they went away.
We have offered out of goodwill to pay their access but did state we didn't believe we had to as we don't want this to become expected of us.
The builder said it was not covered under waranty but have offered to pick up the plumbers bill. They are also going to re do the silicone around the kitchen bases as the PM said it looked like it was cracking as drying out.
It is a new house so no body corps etc involved
Thanks for all your replies we have learnt a lot from this site and continue to do so.
No we knew nothing about it until the Monday when the PM phoned. Tenants had been away for school hols returned Saturday midday to find the mess. As far as we are aware nothing had been reported about a leak to the PM previously nor as far as I believe had there been signs of one before they went away.
We have offered out of goodwill to pay their access but did state we didn't believe we had to as we don't want this to become expected of us.
The builder said it was not covered under waranty but have offered to pick up the plumbers bill. They are also going to re do the silicone around the kitchen bases as the PM said it looked like it was cracking as drying out.
It is a new house so no body corps etc involved
Thanks for all your replies we have learnt a lot from this site and continue to do so.
Gee, the builder saying they are not responsible? How convenient for them.
You might want to speak to BSA or your equivalent yourself because I have had leaky pipes inside a wall that was covered (new gyprock and carpets) and leaky taps in a laundry that damaged wall and skirting and that was also covered.
I would certainly be suggesting the tenant made a claim against their own insurance in the first instance. If the claim was accepted then it is possible that the tenants insurer would then go after the landlord (or the landlords insurer) for compensation.
That said, the tenant is certainly within their rights to seek compensation from the landlord, which in turn would become a claim against the landlords liability policy for property damage to the tenants goods. It then gets down to the courts to decide whether the landlord was responsible or not, although this would be unlikely to ever reach court as unless the cabinet was an antique worth a substantial amount of money they would not waste their time on it.
That said, the tenant is certainly within their rights to seek compensation from the landlord, which in turn would become a claim against the landlords liability policy for property damage to the tenants goods. It then gets down to the courts to decide whether the landlord was responsible or not, although this would be unlikely to ever reach court as unless the cabinet was an antique worth a substantial amount of money they would not waste their time on it.
