Burst pipes saga...

tbs624

What is the purpose in requiring a T to notify a LL/LA that a property is going to be left unoccupied for x number of days? It's generally because the LL's insurers will have specific rules on what should be done to prevent the likelihood of damage when a property is left empty.

If all the T was required to do was leave the heating on low & notify the LL/LA of the fact that the property is unoccupied then the OP clearly did that.

If the LA/LL, having received notice that the property would be empty, did not specifically request additional precautions then they perhaps need to look to their own error/omission. Did the LA perhaps not bother notifying the insurance company/clarifying what the insurance company would stipulate as being necessary?

Were the pipes themselves "lagged"?

Why did the LA not drain down the system/turn the stopcock off once they had let themselves in and realised there was an issue with the heating?

Once an LA is aware of a maintenance issue they are obliged to deal with it and yet time didn't seem to have been of the essence. This is despite the LA apparently being sufficiently concerned about the weather that he chose to let himself in by key.

I suspect that even if the T had been still living at the premises and had come in from work to find heating kaput, then notifiedthe LA, the likelihood would have been that the the LA would still have simply said "HE will be round tomorrow - you'll just have to manage until then", with a similar outcome.

IMO LL is negligent if

(a) could have got a plumber in earlier but didn't because of higher fees
(b) didn't tell LA to get to the stopcock
(c) had poor insulation for the pipework

IMO LA is negligent if T wasn't advised of insurance company requirements and also for doing nothing at the property despite knowing the GSH system was down..

What exactly is the point of going into an empty property as an "emergency", finding a problem and not dealing with it properly, ie just " giving it a good dose of looking at"

SuzieSue

tbs624 wrote: »

Why did the LA not drain down the system/turn the stopcock off once they had let themselves in and realised there was an issue with the heating?

Excellent point. Didn't they read their own letter which they supposedly sent to the OP in December?

tbs624

moromir wrote: »

Clearly this isn't something we're going to agree on so take what I'm saying as simply a different viewpoint as I'm sure you'll agree theres no point in us arguing the toss.

All *any* of us are doing is expressing an individual opinion - we don't all have to agree. In the end it will obviously either be settled by negotiation or by a court of law.

moromir

tbs624 wrote: »

All *any* of us are doing is expressing an individual opinion - we don't all have to agree. In the end it will obviously either be settled by negotiation or by a court of law.

By now you should know that I'm all for debate and fully appreciate we won't all agree, I also fully agree that in the end its down to negociation or a court.

However the post to which you refer was me explaining to a particular poster (rather than the board in general) that I wasn't going to be herded into agreeing with the consensus simply because a poster keeps trying to discredit my viewpoint by posting the same 'reactionary' comment over and over to try and twist what I was saying into something it wasn't (I trust you know me/my posts well enough by now to know I wouldn't suggest something so ridiculous as never leaving your house) which is why I suggested that it would be best if we agree to disagree!

I hope the OP comes back to update in a couple of weeks, it will be interesting to see how this one turns out.