Real estate/tenants/landlords legal question

[pfillery]

A friend of mine rents a house. Recently a pipe under the sink in the ensuite burst and flooded their entire level. the failure was due to an old pipe that just popped (the flexi hose between the wall and the tap). Their stuff, pretty much everything on the floor and less than 3 inches tall got wet, so they lost a laptop, camera, dvd player, a couple of nintendo DS consoles and games, plus had to spend 2 days washing all their waterlogged clothes and linen.

They have no contents insurance. As it was a failure of the house and the landlord/owner has a duty of care to ensure the property is well maintained, are they liable or somewhat liable to repair or replace these things or compensate somehow? After all nothing would have been damaged if the pipe didn't burst. Just like if your tyre blows and you crash into another car, you are legally responsible.

Anyone had a similar experience?

[CraigE]

The simple answer is they should have had contents insurance.
Unless they can prove negligence by the landlord I doubt they would have any success with a claim.
What would they do if they owned the house but did not have contents insurance.
At the end of the day contents insurance is not that expensive.
Maybe talk the your state authority that deals with tenancy and see what the tenancy act provides for.
But the landlord could also come back with the tenants disrupted the pipe.
I can see both sides.
Also talk to the landlord in an amicable manner first as he may just have insurance cover that may cover this.

[DiscoWeb]

A friend of mine rents a house. Recently a pipe under the sink in the ensuite burst and flooded their entire level. the failure was due to an old pipe that just popped (the flexi hose between the wall and the tap). Their stuff, pretty much everything on the floor and less than 3 inches tall got wet, so they lost a laptop, camera, dvd player, a couple of nintendo DS consoles and games, plus had to spend 2 days washing all their waterlogged clothes and linen.

They have no contents insurance. As it was a failure of the house and the landlord/owner has a duty of care to ensure the property is well maintained, are they liable or somewhat liable to repair or replace these things or compensate somehow? After all nothing would have been damaged if the pipe didn't burst. Just like if your tyre blows and you crash into another car, you are legally responsible.

Anyone had a similar experience?

pfillery,

I think the landlords insurance would cover damage to carpets, vanity units etc and and the premises generally. The contents would usually be covered by contents insurance held by the tenant.

They should also check their tenancy agreement as it might specifically state that the tenant needs to have contents insurance, I know leases for commercial premises have specific clauses stating the tenant must hold certain insurances.

I agree with CraigE, best course of action would be to check with the states authorities about where responsibility might lie and have a friendly chat to the landlord or their agent as a first port of call.

If the landlord is amenable then claiming on their insurance for the damaged electrical goods would not cause them great issue but the tenant might need to agree to cover the potential increase in insurance premium going forward.

George

[Tombie]

A friend of mine rents a house. Recently a pipe under the sink in the ensuite burst and flooded their entire level. the failure was due to an old pipe that just popped (the flexi hose between the wall and the tap). Their stuff, pretty much everything on the floor and less than 3 inches tall got wet, so they lost a laptop, camera, dvd player, a couple of nintendo DS consoles and games, plus had to spend 2 days washing all their waterlogged clothes and linen.

They have no contents insurance. As it was a failure of the house and the landlord/owner has a duty of care to ensure the property is well maintained, are they liable or somewhat liable to repair or replace these things or compensate somehow? After all nothing would have been damaged if the pipe didn't burst. Just like if your tyre blows and you crash into another car, you are legally responsible.

Anyone had a similar experience?

How old are these people? :eek: Whats that sort of gear doing on a floor? :(


And as per other posters... I dont think they have a valid claim.

"Duty of Care" is bandied about way to much nowadays....

[big guy]

Tenants should have contents at the very least.

Landlords usually only have building and does not cover much else.
For a burst pipe, thats stuff that can just happen but what you have to ask is why did the floor trap not drain the water?
That is where you may have a claim. Wet areas must either have a overflow prevention device or a floor trap/drain or was that covered with clothes left on floor in which case its back to you.

[101RRS]

The tenants should have had contents insurance and would have made things easier.

However that is almost irrelevant as the pipe in the house broke which is a landlord responsibility.

The landlord has a responsibility to meet any damage to tenants effects caused by a failure in the house.

I would be claiming (for reasonable claims) against the landlord - it is up to the landlord to decide whether to claim against any insurance they may or may not have.

Garry

[MLD]

Hi Pfillery,

Everyone is correct that the simple solution would have been contents insurance. Most landlord's insurance covers both property damage and third party liability. Worth asking that Q.

Answering the question posed. The general rule is that the landlord is not liable for damage caused by a latent defect. A landlord may be held liable for damage caused by defects that would be identified on inspection in the usual course of maintaining a property. The Courts don't, generally, impose a duty on the landlord to go looking for defects. There, generally, would not be a duty on the landlord to engage a plumber to come out and inspect all the pipes to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The rider to that statement is if the landlord was on notice of the defect in the pipe and failed to act.

There has to be some negligence on the part of the landlord. We don't live in a strict liability world where someone is liable whenever you suffer loss. Sometimes stuff happens, an accident. It is inevitable in an ageing house that stuff will break.

That all said, it's worth hitting the landlord up for the damage. Go see a local solicitor whom should be able to provide sound advice. If in NSW there is the CTTT which is a tribunal designed to deal with these types of tenant/landlord disputes. Other states will have similar tribunals as a cheap and quick dispute resolution process. I hold little faith in getting it over the line.

cheers MLD

[trog]

with the shoe on the other foot as a landlord for a year , while touring about , we found our house in a shape less than desirable. Freshly polished floor boards scratches , screens broken plants missing from the backyard etc etc. the result was a trip to court where we could only get the bond back , estimated to only cover about half the damage , and the tenents as far as we know did not get a black mark against them. the landlord insurance fell through as we couldnt claim any of the above was deliberate , even the fact that they allowed a largish dog into the house contrary to the lease. it hd to be proven it was theirs ! in my opinion insurance of this type isnt worth the paper it is written on

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Your friend's would have been better off if it were the flat upstairs that had the water leak!

If they claim against the landlord, they may well find the rent is raised immediately or they are given notice to quit.

[omnibus]

Hi Pfillery,

Everyone is correct that the simple solution would have been contents insurance. Most landlord's insurance covers both property damage and third party liability. Worth asking that Q.

Answering the question posed. The general rule is that the landlord is not liable for damage caused by a latent defect. A landlord may be held liable for damage caused by defects that would be identified on inspection in the usual course of maintaining a property. The Courts don't, generally, impose a duty on the landlord to go looking for defects. There, generally, would not be a duty on the landlord to engage a plumber to come out and inspect all the pipes to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The rider to that statement is if the landlord was on notice of the defect in the pipe and failed to act.

There has to be some negligence on the part of the landlord. We don't live in a strict liability world where someone is liable whenever you suffer loss. Sometimes stuff happens, an accident. It is inevitable in an ageing house that stuff will break.

That all said, it's worth hitting the landlord up for the damage. Go see a local solicitor whom should be able to provide sound advice. If in NSW there is the CTTT which is a tribunal designed to deal with these types of tenant/landlord disputes. Other states will have similar tribunals as a cheap and quick dispute resolution process. I hold little faith in getting it over the line.

cheers MLD

completely agree but I will add one thought I had, If the tenants had previously mentioned or requested the said pipe to be fixed, by way of a maintenance request, prior to the incident they may have an option there. Just a thought was all. Hope it works out, they obviously have kids with the stuff you describe they lost. Never cool when ur toys get trashed.

[big guy]

Pipes can break, its that easy.
globes can burn out and sewers can get blocked.

Main point is why did it flood and that is his only cause of action.

Wet areas nust have drainage and if the landlord is found negligent in that area, that is where he can possibly get compensation.
I have 3 rental properties and if I get a call I will fix any issues straight away or in one case, the tenant is very handy and he fixes and I give him beer.
Nice arrangement only problem is beer is not tax deductable:mad:

The other thing is, who the heck leaves all that crap as noted on the floor anyhow, that sounds suss to me in the first place, laptop on the floor, that is just a accident waiting to happen.

Good luck

[Ivan]

The other thing is, who the heck leaves all that crap as noted on the floor anyhow, that sounds suss to me in the first place, laptop on the floor, that is just a accident waiting to happen.
Good luck

I agree it does sound a bit suss. Christmas coming up and they just happen to lose a lot of things that would be a nice Christmas Present.
Not saying it is suss but just think about the way it looks.

Ivan

[pfillery]

The house is a 3 story share house, they are young single people with no kids and being an older house, there are no floor drains so nowhere for the water to go except onto the carpet. They have everything under the bed which, granted, is stupid, however they are not going to be there forever so didn't want to outlay for furniture like cupboards etc.

It is a good point about the drains though - as an older house there is probably no rule to say it has to be up to spec with these things (eg new houses that require water tanks plumbed to the toilet but no laws requiring retrofit of older houses)

Worth looking into though.


Pipes can break, its that easy.
globes can burn out and sewers can get blocked.

Main point is why did it flood and that is his only cause of action.

Wet areas nust have drainage and if the landlord is found negligent in that area, that is where he can possibly get compensation.
I have 3 rental properties and if I get a call I will fix any issues straight away or in one case, the tenant is very handy and he fixes and I give him beer.
Nice arrangement only problem is beer is not tax deductable:mad:

The other thing is, who the heck leaves all that crap as noted on the floor anyhow, that sounds suss to me in the first place, laptop on the floor, that is just a accident waiting to happen.

Good luck

[Bigbjorn]

I had rental properties, residential and commercial/industrial for around thirty years. Agents and tenants give me the tom tits properly. Agents are liars and cheats, practice nepotism and corrupt backhanders from repair trades. Tenants have rights by law. Well, I consider they have the right to pay rent on time, in full, and the right to not damage my property other than fair wear and tear.

I finally decided I was getting too old to be physically chucking tenants out on their asses on my own, and the incompetence and dishonesty of the agents finally got to me. So I took my capital gain and put it in cash type investments and are most happy with the reduction in stress.

When I managed and maintained the properties myself, this was a good business. Not so good when you are a long way away and have an agent managing the properties, collecting (or not) the rent, and arranging repairs and maintenance by their mates and rellies.

A nice Australian-Sicilian family, neighbours from my growing up days in New Farm, have around 150 houses, units, flats, manage and maintain them themselves. The third generation are now the team on the ground. Four brothers, all over 6' and built like Primo Carnera. The guy in my school class is second generation and tells me they still physically chuck tenants out. "What about the Residential Tenancies Act" says I. "We are poor dumb dagoes who don't speak English and don't know the law" says Mario. "Isn't Sebastiano a barrister" says I. "Yes, so is Rossi. Saves a bundle in court costs if we ever need them. Anyway, the bad tenants are gone, we have their bond and their furniture and so on to send to auction." says Mario " What about if the tenants go to the coppers?" says I. "They don't go to the coppers as they usually have unpaid fines and warrants" says Mario. "Anyhow, we are good friends with the police".

[strangy]

Tennants problem, pure and simple unfortunately for your friends.

Landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs and ensuring the dwelling is habitable.
Public liability,building insurance and basic contents i.e carpets and fixtures are Landlords responsibility and in the NT, only the Public liability is mandatory in a legal setting.
Tennants contents are not the responsibility of a Landlord.

The issue of floor drains is irrelevant if the house complied with building codes at the time of construction. Even if the house didnt comply, the Tennants would have to go to court and prove that floor drains would have saved their belongings and that it would be reasonable for the Landlord to have been aware of this and was knowingly negligent in its rectification.
The description of flooding the entire level and items 3 inches tall etc. would suggest that the entire dwelling would have been severely damaged and damages would account for much more than the apparent items.

cheers

[big guy]

There is something not right, 3 inches is 75 mm, that will take ages to fill and where is the water stop to have that much water accumulate.
Water will find the path of least resistance, always and if upstairs will have leaked through plasterboard and under doors long before the 3 inches in height is reached.
bathroom would have a floor trap, in shower or floor and if that was blocked you have a claim but how will it fill that much.

This is a call to myth busters and I bet its a con no matter what is argued.
If upstairs floods it will always leak down stairs. To get an apartment watertight is an exercise in itself and tanking a floor would be near to impossible.
Thats from experience and much study.:o