Sorry - that's unfortunately not how it works. If you can prove the the Landlords negligence caused the repair, then yes, the tenant would have a case. Apart from that, the tenants would have to rely on their own insurance. What if a tree fell on the house? That's an accident - would the owner be liable because it happens to be their house?
Water damage to tenants property
- Thread starter JPS25
- Start date
Sorry - that's unfortunately not how it works. If you can prove the the Landlords negligence caused the repair, then yes, the tenant would have a case. Apart from that, the tenants would have to rely on their own insurance. What if a tree fell on the house? That's an accident - would the owner be liable because it happens to be their house?
No, as I said before, a tree is different because its not something that is supposed to be in "working order" as part of the tenancy agreement. And I suppose there could be a rare situation where there was something "wrong" with the tree and owner could be found liable.
I always find it interesting that so many people are so vocal and stubborn when they disagree with my legal advice/opinion. Do people think I'm making it all up?
Is it often the case that people like to argue with their own lawyers when the advice is bad news? Or maybe they think if they pay a lawyer the $350/hour standard rate perhaps the advice will be different?
Was just checking the RTA website and lifted this straight from the "Renting in Queensland" booklet every tenant gets at the start of a tenancy -
Who pays for insurance?
The lessor must pay for the rates and is responsible for insurance for the premises (that is, insurance for the building, but not for your belongings).
If you want protection for your belongings you will need to take out “contents insurance” (a once a year or month-by-month payment to cover the cost of your belongings if they’re stolen or damaged).
Pretty clear cut.
Who pays for insurance?
The lessor must pay for the rates and is responsible for insurance for the premises (that is, insurance for the building, but not for your belongings).
If you want protection for your belongings you will need to take out “contents insurance” (a once a year or month-by-month payment to cover the cost of your belongings if they’re stolen or damaged).
Pretty clear cut.
Although that's true Wiley it doesn't negate the possibility that a tenant could sue the landlord for losses they incur, if they believe the losses have been caused by the landlords negligence. A landlord policy for example would not pay damage to the tenants contents (as it is not an insurable item for the landlord), however if the tenant successfully sued the landlord the liability section of the landlord policy may pick it up.
I agree with what you are saying. But in the first instance, if this happened to one of our tenants, I would probably ask them to claim on their contents insurance and if their insurer pursued us via our insurance, that is for our insurer to deal with. If it cost us an excess that is okay. I just don't think a tenant should "expect" the landlord to cough up for damage when they haven't bother to pay for insurance, or even for the landlord to pay the excess just because it was caused by something totally random like a burst tap.
I believe the big problem is that so many tenants don't bother to pay for insurance, and then expect the landlord to pay for damage, caused by something in the house, but not caused by the landlord's negligence, simply a burst pipe (or whatever) that is not foreseeable.
I believe the big problem is that so many tenants don't bother to pay for insurance, and then expect the landlord to pay for damage, caused by something in the house, but not caused by the landlord's negligence, simply a burst pipe (or whatever) that is not foreseeable.
Agree 100%. The number of tenants that take out insurance is ridiculously low. I actually have a problem with people being bailed out by anyone when they choose not to take insurance, but that's another subject altogether.
