Landlord / tenant liability - flooded property
Discussion
Hi, after some learned advice if possible? I have recently moved out of a rented property that is currently sitting vacant but is let to me until 5th January. As the property is empty we left the heating on for a few hours a day at 12 degrees to prevent any pipes freezing and bursting as we didn't want any flooding to occur.
Unfortunately when we returned to the property on Tuesday this week to collect one of the cars I discovered a fair amount of water in the garage as a result of a couple of plastic push-fit fittings having burst, one T in the garage loft and another in line connector adjacent to the small radiator in the garage (it used to be part-converted as a study), both of which were uninsulated and had presumably split due to the recent extreme weather we have suffered. The neighbour had suffered a burst pipe in his garage too and I called the landlord to notify him of this aware that the rest of the property was now unheated as a result of the heating system having drained itself onto the garage floor.
Had I had the time I may have replaced the fittings, reprimed the heating system and left the system on, however it didn't occur to me that I should be held liable for component failures due to a lack of insulation in unheated spaces so left it with the landlord. The landlord called an emergency plumber who has charged £170 for his work, which is where the fun began as the landlord believes neither party should be held responsible and wants to split the bill 50/50.
The landlord is being difficult about a number of points on condition etc (2 pin holes in the wall for picture hooks and a knock to one wall from removing furniture, both of which I have made good despite them being fair wear and tear in my mind as there is no clause RE: hooks in our contract) and I think is after reclaiming this entire cost one way or another from our deposit.
Before I advise that I'm happy to take the matters through the deposit dispute process could anyone please advise where liability lies for the burst uninsulated fittings? No real damage has occurred in the property so insurers haven't been involved, hence where we are now.
Definitive answer much appreciated if anyone can give one from a legal perspective?
Thanks - Griffit
Unfortunately when we returned to the property on Tuesday this week to collect one of the cars I discovered a fair amount of water in the garage as a result of a couple of plastic push-fit fittings having burst, one T in the garage loft and another in line connector adjacent to the small radiator in the garage (it used to be part-converted as a study), both of which were uninsulated and had presumably split due to the recent extreme weather we have suffered. The neighbour had suffered a burst pipe in his garage too and I called the landlord to notify him of this aware that the rest of the property was now unheated as a result of the heating system having drained itself onto the garage floor.
Had I had the time I may have replaced the fittings, reprimed the heating system and left the system on, however it didn't occur to me that I should be held liable for component failures due to a lack of insulation in unheated spaces so left it with the landlord. The landlord called an emergency plumber who has charged £170 for his work, which is where the fun began as the landlord believes neither party should be held responsible and wants to split the bill 50/50.
The landlord is being difficult about a number of points on condition etc (2 pin holes in the wall for picture hooks and a knock to one wall from removing furniture, both of which I have made good despite them being fair wear and tear in my mind as there is no clause RE: hooks in our contract) and I think is after reclaiming this entire cost one way or another from our deposit.
Before I advise that I'm happy to take the matters through the deposit dispute process could anyone please advise where liability lies for the burst uninsulated fittings? No real damage has occurred in the property so insurers haven't been involved, hence where we are now.
Definitive answer much appreciated if anyone can give one from a legal perspective?
Thanks - Griffit
There are some obligations for the landlord to maintain the heating and pipework (for want of a better term) under s.11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 however there may also be obligations in the tenancy for maintaining heating when not in the premises (which the OP says they did) and on conduct when the property is empty (e.g. notification to the landlord). The tenant is also required to act in a 'tenant-like manner' - which I would say in this case is act reasonably to attempt to prevent the pipes freezing.
You would need to examine both the lease and conduct of both landlord and tenant to determine who should pay the plumber's bill. It looks like the OP as a tenant has taken some precautions to prevent freezing but it obviously wasn't enough and there isn't enough information in the original post to come to a definitive conclusion. For example did the landlord know the property was empty? Did the landlord request any specific action as a result e.g. draining the system and turning the water off or leaving the heating on 24/7? Are any clauses in the lease transferring responsibility to the tenant reasonable or not?
Without looking at all the facts it's not possible to determine exactly who should pay what proportion of the plumber's bill.
In respect of the action after the landlord was notified of the burst pipe I think it is reasonable for a landlord to call in a plumber to make sure the problem is fixed rather than relying on a tenant who may or may not know what they are doing to fix it.
You would need to examine both the lease and conduct of both landlord and tenant to determine who should pay the plumber's bill. It looks like the OP as a tenant has taken some precautions to prevent freezing but it obviously wasn't enough and there isn't enough information in the original post to come to a definitive conclusion. For example did the landlord know the property was empty? Did the landlord request any specific action as a result e.g. draining the system and turning the water off or leaving the heating on 24/7? Are any clauses in the lease transferring responsibility to the tenant reasonable or not?
Without looking at all the facts it's not possible to determine exactly who should pay what proportion of the plumber's bill.
In respect of the action after the landlord was notified of the burst pipe I think it is reasonable for a landlord to call in a plumber to make sure the problem is fixed rather than relying on a tenant who may or may not know what they are doing to fix it.
Thanks for this, very helpful. I've trawled my agreement and pulled out the relevant sections. Any further assistance would really help as I'm now in discussion over some oil stains on the drive...
4.1.9 Pay for the entire invoices and costs of any contractors that the Tenant arranges without having previously obtained the Landlord's authority, unless acting reasonably to effect emergency repairs for which the Landlord is liable.
4.1.15 Where the Tenant requests a repair and on inspection the problem has been caused by a failure on the part of the Tenant (for example drains blocked by the Tenant's waste or boiler repair claims caused by not having any credit on a utility meter), the Tenant agrees to be responsible for the reasonable costs of the contractor's visit.
And under 'repairs':
4.2.1 Keep the property including all of the Landlord's machinery and equipment clean and tidy and in good and tenantable condition, repair and decorative order, (reasonable wear and tear, items which the Landlord is responsible to maintain, and damage for which the Landlord has agreed to insure, excepted).
4.2.2 Not permit any waste, injury or damage to the Property, or make any alterations or addition to the Property or the style or colour of the decorations.
And under 'the property':
A clause about notifying damage etc in writing (I called due to the nature of the situation)
4.3.3 Use the Property in the manner a reasonable and conscientious tenant would.
Cheers!
Andy_GSA said:
There are some obligations for the landlord to maintain the heating and pipework (for want of a better term) under s.11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 however there may also be obligations in the tenancy for maintaining heating when not in the premises (which the OP says they did)...
There is nothing specific in the agreement regarding heating the property when vacant, nor draining it down or similar. The heating was left on, albeit only for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening, however the pipes that burst were heating pipes, not domestic water, so were those through which the heat was flowing.Andy_GSA said:
...and on conduct when the property is empty (e.g. notification to the landlord). The tenant is also required to act in a 'tenant-like manner' - which I would say in this case is act reasonably to attempt to prevent the pipes freezing.
There is no specific clause relating to notification when the property is vacant but the landlord was aware that we would be moving from 11th-13th December and leaving the property unattended, returning thereafter only to clean and remove the other cars. No specific actions were requested otherwise we would have complied. We believed that leaving the property heated as above would be sufficient protection for a property with what we could only assume was a properly insulated plumbing and heating system (which it was, the bursts occurred on uninsulated and poorly installed joints of which I took a photo).Andy_GSA said:
You would need to examine both the lease and conduct of both landlord and tenant to determine who should pay the plumber's bill. It looks like the OP as a tenant has taken some precautions to prevent freezing but it obviously wasn't enough and there isn't enough information in the original post to come to a definitive conclusion. For example did the landlord know the property was empty? Did the landlord request any specific action as a result e.g. draining the system and turning the water off or leaving the heating on 24/7? Are any clauses in the lease transferring responsibility to the tenant reasonable or not?
Only relevant clauses I can find are as follows under 'tenant obligations':4.1.9 Pay for the entire invoices and costs of any contractors that the Tenant arranges without having previously obtained the Landlord's authority, unless acting reasonably to effect emergency repairs for which the Landlord is liable.
4.1.15 Where the Tenant requests a repair and on inspection the problem has been caused by a failure on the part of the Tenant (for example drains blocked by the Tenant's waste or boiler repair claims caused by not having any credit on a utility meter), the Tenant agrees to be responsible for the reasonable costs of the contractor's visit.
And under 'repairs':
4.2.1 Keep the property including all of the Landlord's machinery and equipment clean and tidy and in good and tenantable condition, repair and decorative order, (reasonable wear and tear, items which the Landlord is responsible to maintain, and damage for which the Landlord has agreed to insure, excepted).
4.2.2 Not permit any waste, injury or damage to the Property, or make any alterations or addition to the Property or the style or colour of the decorations.
And under 'the property':
A clause about notifying damage etc in writing (I called due to the nature of the situation)
4.3.3 Use the Property in the manner a reasonable and conscientious tenant would.
Andy_GSA said:
Without looking at all the facts it's not possible to determine exactly who should pay what proportion of the plumber's bill.
In respect of the action after the landlord was notified of the burst pipe I think it is reasonable for a landlord to call in a plumber to make sure the problem is fixed rather than relying on a tenant who may or may not know what they are doing to fix it.
Fair point and wholly understood. So any comments on where liability rests given the above?In respect of the action after the landlord was notified of the burst pipe I think it is reasonable for a landlord to call in a plumber to make sure the problem is fixed rather than relying on a tenant who may or may not know what they are doing to fix it.
Cheers!
Thanks for the detailed reply.
To sum up the general legal position as I see it the landlord is liable for the cost of maintaining the water and heating (which would include repairs of burst pipes etc) however the tenant may be liable for some or all of that cost if the repair work was necessitated by some action or inaction of theirs. Presuming that the worst comes to the worst and you end up at court over this in my view a Judge would come to a conclusion along the following lines:
It is also possible however that an expert witness (e.g. an experienced plumber / heating engineer) might be able to give evidence that leaving the heating on 1 hour a.m. and 1 hour p.m. should have been sufficient to prevent the pipes freezing which out to remove any liability from the tenant, however you may find they say the opposite!
Hope that's been of some help but unfortunately I think the landlord may well be asking for a reasonable contribution to the plumber's costs.
To sum up the general legal position as I see it the landlord is liable for the cost of maintaining the water and heating (which would include repairs of burst pipes etc) however the tenant may be liable for some or all of that cost if the repair work was necessitated by some action or inaction of theirs. Presuming that the worst comes to the worst and you end up at court over this in my view a Judge would come to a conclusion along the following lines:
The Judge said:
The landlord is statutorily liable for the repair cost and has also been negligent to a degree in not making sure the joints that burst were insulated nor having ensured the water system was drained down when he knew the property would be empty in December.
The tenant however was responsible for the property until January and would or should have been aware of the local weather conditions. The tenant admits to leaving the heating on for only 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening with the property otherwise vacant.
The tenant may not have been aware of the pipe in the garage loft however would have been aware of the uninsulated pipework in the garage itself.
Whilst neither landlord or tenant has acted deliberately to damage the pipework the tenant did leave the property unoccupied for a number of weeks with the heating on for only 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening during the most severe December weather for many years. The tenant's actions were negligent and contributed to the leaks however the landlord was also to a degree negligent in failing to properly insulate the pipework and ensure the heating was protected properly when the property was empty and therefore liability must be shared.
Whether the split of liability is 50/50 or some other figure is difficult to determine.The tenant however was responsible for the property until January and would or should have been aware of the local weather conditions. The tenant admits to leaving the heating on for only 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening with the property otherwise vacant.
The tenant may not have been aware of the pipe in the garage loft however would have been aware of the uninsulated pipework in the garage itself.
Whilst neither landlord or tenant has acted deliberately to damage the pipework the tenant did leave the property unoccupied for a number of weeks with the heating on for only 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening during the most severe December weather for many years. The tenant's actions were negligent and contributed to the leaks however the landlord was also to a degree negligent in failing to properly insulate the pipework and ensure the heating was protected properly when the property was empty and therefore liability must be shared.
It is also possible however that an expert witness (e.g. an experienced plumber / heating engineer) might be able to give evidence that leaving the heating on 1 hour a.m. and 1 hour p.m. should have been sufficient to prevent the pipes freezing which out to remove any liability from the tenant, however you may find they say the opposite!
Hope that's been of some help but unfortunately I think the landlord may well be asking for a reasonable contribution to the plumber's costs.
Presumably the landlord has some insurance cover for this kind of problem. Though if they did pay out they might claim themselves against the tenant.
If the pipes were uninsulated that is the landlord's negligence. Is the tenant qualified to note that some pieps aren't insulated?
My random thoughts. It's like all property problems it needs a good lawyer to review all the facts which unfortunately usually costs more than the problem no matter who is right.
If the pipes were uninsulated that is the landlord's negligence. Is the tenant qualified to note that some pieps aren't insulated?
My random thoughts. It's like all property problems it needs a good lawyer to review all the facts which unfortunately usually costs more than the problem no matter who is right.
MJG280 said:
Presumably the landlord has some insurance cover for this kind of problem. Though if they did pay out they might claim themselves against the tenant.
If the pipes were uninsulated that is the landlord's negligence. Is the tenant qualified to note that some pieps aren't insulated?
My random thoughts. It's like all property problems it needs a good lawyer to review all the facts which unfortunately usually costs more than the problem no matter who is right.
I agree with Andy's two posts, although it is one of those situations where both the tenant and landlord could be held responsible for the burst pipes, with the location, above and inside garage, together with the lack of insulation, being points the OP should use to defend any claim for repair costs made by the landlord. If the pipes were uninsulated that is the landlord's negligence. Is the tenant qualified to note that some pieps aren't insulated?
My random thoughts. It's like all property problems it needs a good lawyer to review all the facts which unfortunately usually costs more than the problem no matter who is right.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff