Burst pipes saga...

RSn9

Hi.

[Hope this is the correct place to post this...:D]

Need some advice on previous property I was a tenant in. Lot here, so will keep it bulleted for now.

Moved family and furniture out of property 1 month before lease was up, although due to prior job knew I would be returning a few of times (once a week) to stay in the house. Left central heating on 12 degrees and all radiators on maximum. Phoned agent/landlord to tell them out of curtasy.

Agent/Landlord entered property without notifying me 11 days after family moved out and 5 days after my last overnight stay to check property was ok due to extreme cold weather at the time. Phoned my wife and said the heating didn't seem to be working and that they had tried to get it to function. Asked if we would want them to get in their workman to have a look. We of course AGREED - property is managed and heating and water infrastructure being their responsibility, we were happy.

Phone call NEXT morning, property had flooded from burst pipes in loft due to frost overnight. Wife asked what had happened to agents workman going in to property to look at the issue. Agent/Landlord said she didn't send someone because we had REFUSED.

I went to property to survey damage. Went to agent to discuss. Agent said we were completely responsible for the damage.

We got a plumber in, he said that fuse had gone to heater, and that the Synchron valve was sticking - hence why heating probably wasn't working. We got an Electrician in, he says property is electrically sound, but a few switches needed replacing.

However, we have been told that we need to pay for a total redecoration, replacement of carpets, total rewiring of the house (comes to ~£10000).

Question: How are we responsible for this and why? Surely this is covered by landlords buildings insurance? Surely by entering the property and altering the temperature settings and potentially making the problem worse the Agent are responsible? Surely if the heating system is malfunctioning, this isn't our responsibility?

A little guidance please...

thanks.

G_M

will keep it bulleted for now

Where's the bullets? :rotfl:

OK seriously. You are in no way responsible.
1) boiler maintenance/faults (ie fuse, valve etc) are the landlord's responsibility (see below)
2) Landlord should have insurance. This will cover it. If he doesn't, that's his problem
3) You kept agent informed

Are you in Eng/Wales? Has your tenancy now ended? Was there a deposit? Is/was it protected?
Do you have a copy of Gas safety certificate (sorry - is it gas?)

Is LL/agent claiming deductions from deposit and/or demanding payment?

Either way you have no liability. Refuse to pay denying liability.
If deductions are made from deposit, go to the deposit scheme arbitration proces.

S.11 of Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

it is the landlord's responsibility......

(a) to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling, including drains, gutters and external pipes,
(b) to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling for the supply of water, gas, electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences) but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity, and
(c) to keep in repair and proper working order the installation in the dwelling for space heating and heating water.

The only way you might be liable is if you left the property unoccupied for longer than the period specified in your contract (30 days? 45?). This is because the landlord's insurance usually has a similar limit so would not pay out. In this case it seems clear you had not been away that long, you had informed the agent (so they could go in to do an insurance check) AND you went back yourself. So no tenant liability here.

sequence

LA/Landlord having a laugh...

Ignore them and request deposit back when contract is up.

tbs624

Totally agree with G_M.

Most TAs contain a clause which says a T has to let the LL/LA know if there is to be a specific continuous period of the property being left empty, ie 21/28 days - you say that you let the LA know the property would be empty apart from occasional visits by you so you *more* than covered yourself there. You say that you left the heating on low, so you covered yourself there.

The LAs felt that they had sufficient "right" to let themselves & interfere with the heating controls. As you received a phone call the following morning to say that the pipes had burst, presumably the LA had been back in the property again? How does that tie in with their claim of there being a refusal from you that prevented a HE attending? They could quite simply have got the system properly closed down as a matter of priority

Sounds like, despite knowing there was extremely cold weather and that the system did not appear to be working, the LA did not address the matter quickly enough: he probably added to his "to do" list for the following day because that was the soonest the usual HE could be there.

Experienced LLs/LAs know that sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and pay an exorbitant emergency call out fee - it's tax deductible anyway.

Looks like LL client will have sought explanation from LA, LA doesn't want to take a hit for the damage and so is seeking to implicate you

Have you got a written report from that plumber you brought in ?

You may want to consider seeking a "Fixed Fee interview" with an appropriately experienced lawyer

RSn9

G_M:
We are in England, tenancy ended during the week. Yes there was a deposit and yes it was protected. We have tried to get it back, but it has already been refused. The agent is demanding payment in full for work to begin.

tbs264: Plumbers report is on the way.

Based on what you guys are saying, as well as the C.A.B, shelter, a solicitor and a local council service (who blunty said 'your agent is being ridiculous'!?), why would they be persuing this? Surely their own advisors would have said the same? What could they have that makes them so confident that they wish to persue this?

Thanks everyone for your help so far...

tbs624

RSn9 wrote: »

Based on what you guys are saying, as well as the C.A.B, shelter, a solicitor and a local council service (who blunty said 'your agent is being ridiculous'!?), why would they be persuing this? Surely their own advisors would have said the same? What could they have that makes them so confident that they wish to persue this?

Because their own insurers may not be best pleased with the LAs actions/omissions and the LA is buttock clenchingly wondering how to meet that bill for the damage?

LAs aren't regulated - any fool can set themselves up in business as an LA. They don't need any specific expertise, training or qualifications to be able to do so. Hence there may be many windows that effectively bear the sign "A Pratt - Letting Agent";) Many of them have a very poor grasp of even basic law/accountancy matters and yet there they are dealing with legal documents and thousands of ££s worth of other people's property and rent/deposits etc.

G_M

The agents are either
1) ignorant - no training necessary. Many agencies are se up by people who have little knowledge
2) trying desperately to find a scape goat. If the LL has no insurance and/or the insurers have reused o pay out, the LL will be looking to blame the agent who.......

They are trying to scare you. DON'T be scared as you are in the right.

Which deposit scheme? Check their website and follow the process to raise a dispute and go to arbitration.

moromir

My only query would be whether it could be argued that leaving the property unattended for five days without the tenants making arrangements to ensure the heating was checked regularly (at least daily, bearing in mind the weather has been well documented) would equate to not treating the property in a 'tenant like manner'?

RSn9

moromir wrote: »

My only query would be whether it could be argued that leaving the property unattended for five days without the tenants making arrangements to ensure the heating was checked regularly (at least daily, bearing in mind the weather has been well documented) would equate to not treating the property in a 'tenant like manner'?

That was one of the questions we put to the various organisations along with others when we asked about what might be argued. They all said that it wouldn't matter so long as reasonable care was taken to ensure the system wouldn't freeze - which we did - and that even if extreme weather still compromised that - especially if the house is insufficiently insulated (which it was) with an aging central heating system lacking proper maintenance - and if the duration of our time away from the property was reasonable (no more than 2 weeks) and it was 5 days since my last entry and 11 since family moved out, then there is no basis for them to use that argument. Essentially, if anyone were to be held to that, then nobody would ever leave the home during winter... which is plain silly... as no one would go on skiing holidays or holidays to places like Australia over Xmas...

moromir

RSn9 wrote: »

They all said that it wouldn't matter so long as reasonable care was taken to ensure the system wouldn't freeze - which we did - and that even if extreme weather still compromised that - especially if the house is insufficiently insulated (which it was) with an aging central heating system lacking proper maintenance - and if the duration of our time away from the property was reasonable (no more than 2 weeks) and it was 5 days since my last entry and 11 since family moved out, then there is no basis for them to use that argument. Essentially, if anyone were to be held to that, then nobody would ever leave the home during winter... which is plain silly... as no one would go on skiing holidays or holidays to places like Australia over Xmas...

My bolding.

I have to say that personally (I've no idea on the legal view) I don't agree that it is reasonable to leave a property unattended for five days in the coldest winter for years.

'insufficient insulation', as far as I know there is no universal definition of what 'sufficient insulation' is. I think that any judge would reasonably agree that no amount of insulation was going to do much against the recent weather without the provision of adequate heating.

Of course people can go away.. they just need to make adequate provision for the house while they're gone or risk the coming home to the situation the OP has... luckily I have a nice neighbour and we swap keys when one of us goes away and we check each other's houses daily (sometimes twice daily if the pets are staying home and they need feeding etc) and make sure the heating is working / electric (for freezer).

I think you do need to concede that had you been at the property, or had the property been regularly checked, it is likely that any fault with the heating would have been picked up well before the property got cold enough to burst pipes.

tbs624

moromir wrote: »

My only query would be whether it could be argued that leaving the property unattended for five days without the tenants making arrangements to ensure the heating was checked regularly (at least daily, bearing in mind the weather has been well documented) would equate to not treating the property in a 'tenant like manner'?

That would though equate to suggesting that Ts may never leave their homes during a cold snap, even for a couple of days, just in case the LLs heating system was a bit unreliable and the LA was likely to be slow getting hold of an HE

The OP had done all that is usually required of a T in his circumstances (more in fact, by personally popping back now and again as well as letting the LA know, and keeping the heating on a low setting)

The "killer" bit IMO is that the LA accessed the property and found there was a problem but appeared to have been happy to wait to get to get it dealt with, rather than acknowledge the potential risk of extensive damage occurring because of the weather (LA may of course have phoned LL and LL didn't want to incur the heftier "emergency call out" fees so agreed to wait).