Broken toilet & £500 water bill

PasturesNew

Some people are insured for oddball things... worth reading the policy.

MRS_TO_BE_2

Going to have to find this. But might be a silly question but how would you know you have a leak. i have no idea what we would use in a day or week

Rikki

MRS_TO_BE wrote: »

Going to have to find this. But might be a silly question but how would you know you have a leak. i have no idea what we would use in a day or week

When I check mine I make sure there is no water being used. All taps off, no washing machine running etc and no young child about to flush the toilet. :rolleyes:

So basically if any of the dials or numbers are moving I have a leak. As turning everything off should stop the meter completely.

Its easier to check than a gas or electric meter as it stops completely. You don't need to work out how much you use to see if you have a leak. It is suggested you take regular readings so you have an idea of weekly/monthly usage so you can spot a leak quickly.

deanos

Ring the water co. and explain they *may* send you out a leakage allowance form, its worth a shot

MRS_TO_BE_2

Thanks Rikki will be doing this from now on and advising my friends to keep a check on theirs

PilotJames

I disagree with the comments that the landlord is not responsible.

The landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the property and any consequential costs. You're responsible for the water that you use; not water that's wasted due to a fault - unless, of course, if that fault were obvious and you didn't bother to report it.

If there was no tenant in the property, then who would be responsible for the cost of leaked water? The landlord. Just because there's a tenant in the property that does not offload the cost on to them.

Magentasue

We have just moved into a house with a meter and taking monthly readings so we can predict the bill. When I rang the water board about changing my DD, they worked out our average daily usage - ring and ask and then check weekly or monthly - if it's high for no reason, you'll be warned something is wrong.

Cardew

PilotJames wrote: »

I disagree with the comments that the landlord is not responsible.

The landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the property and any consequential costs. You're responsible for the water that you use; not water that's wasted due to a fault - unless, of course, if that fault were obvious and you didn't bother to report it.

If there was no tenant in the property, then who would be responsible for the cost of leaked water? The landlord. Just because there's a tenant in the property that does not offload the cost on to them.

As soon as the fault was reported to the Landord it was fixed.

It would appear that something in the order of 100,000 litres of water leaked - which would account for £300 - £400 of the £500 bill.

So if the OP is correct about the toilet being responsible and assuming a 6 month period for the bill - that is something like 23 litres an hour!!

Now if 23 litres was leaking down my toilet every hour, I might just have noticed it.

PilotJames

Cardew wrote: »

Now if 23 litres was leaking down my toilet every hour, I might just have noticed it.

Not necessarily - that's 6.4ml per second trickling down the pan. I bet you wouldn't notice that unless you were specifically looking for it. I had 15 litres of water leaking down my toilet/hour and it was quite imperceptible.

Cardew wrote: »

As soon as the fault was reported to the Landord it was fixed.

That was jolly good of him to repair his own property. But he's still responsible for the cost of the problem. If that problem were in a less obvious place - the pipe coming into the flat, for example - who would be responsible then? Certainly not the tenant. He wouldn't be aware of the problem until he looked closely at his meter readings and certainly shouldn't be expected to pay for the landlord's problem.

silvercar

Check the tenancy agreement. Usually they contain a clause specifying that the tenant should notify the landlord of maintenance issues. If the tenant didn't do so then the landlord wouldn't be liable for consequential loss.

I realise that it may not be easy for the tenant to spot the leak, but if the tenant couldn't spot the leak living in the property, there is no way you can expect the landlord to be able to spot it.