Rented flat: responsibility for flood?

DRP

Hi all, just posting this for a friend:


Bath overflowed whilst being cleaned as my friend got distracted in another room.

"about half a bucket" of water leaked down a large gap in the skirting board/wall into flat below, causing damage to ceiling and bed, clothes of resident (the water contained bleach for cleaning the bath).

LL wants tenant to pay for repainting the ceiling below (no quote yet) and the replacement of the downstairs residents' clothes etc.

Yes she was irresponsible leaving the tap running, but there are two issues that might be useful to argue with the LL and/or the deposit company when it comes to getting her deposit back.

1) the big hole (height of a tall skirting board x 3-4 cm wide) in the corner of the bathroom wall which allowed water to leak through.
2) The bath has no overflow fitted, which seems very unusual ('negligent'?).

Any thoughts on whether these 2 issues (esp #2) will give her any room for arguing that she shouldn'#t pay (or at least meet the LL halfway or similar) ?

Thanks for your opinions.

martinsurrey

DRP wrote: »

...as my friend got distracted in another room...

sorry, but the landlord doesn’t NEED to design and fit the house, expecting people to not watch the bath.

Your friend was negligent in leaving a running bath unattended, cost is hers IMO.

People will start saying “the LL should claim on his insurance”, but if you go down that route, expect the insurance company to chase your friend for the costs, as she is still liable for negligence, after adding a healthy margin for themselves (so your friend would be worse off).

G_M

Please clarify who is who and who did what:

* leaseholder
* freeholder
* landlord
* tenant
* friend
* downstairs neighbour - leaseholder?

But basically whoever was cleaning the bath was negligent, so.....

Better_Days

Sorry but I don't think your friend has got a leg to stand on! Unless the bathroom was a wet room the water would have got through the skirtings, and even if it was a wet room the water would have got through the doorway.

The rate of flow through the taps is likely to be faster than the overflow could cope with although it may have mitigated the problem somewhat.

Your friend needs to make sure quotes to repair the ceiling are reasonable and also that damage to the other tenants belongings is also reasonable. Does your friend have any accidental damage insurance that would cover this?

DRP

Thanks for the comments folks!

I do agree that she is probably entirely responsible, but i was very surprised to hear of a bath without an overflow... seems mad.

G_M wrote: »

Please clarify who is who and who did what:

* leaseholder
* freeholder
* landlord
* tenant
* friend
* downstairs neighbour - leaseholder?

But basically whoever was cleaning the bath was negligent, so.....

Friend is a tenant.

As I understand it , downstairs neighbour is a tenant too.

LL via agent requesting she pay for the damage.

DRP

Better_Days wrote: »

Sorry but I don't think your friend has got a leg to stand on! Unless the bathroom was a wet room the water would have got through the skirtings, and even if it was a wet room the water would have got through the doorway.

The rate of flow through the taps is likely to be faster than the overflow could cope with although it may have mitigated the problem somewhat.

Your friend needs to make sure quotes to repair the ceiling are reasonable and also that damage to the other tenants belongings is also reasonable. Does your friend have any accidental damage insurance that would cover this?

She's not insured - I have told her to make sure she gets paperwork for everything the LL does including quotes etc.


Given the relatively small amount of water that actually escaped, i think the overflow would probably have saved her in time - that would be my point to argue if it were me.

Werdnal

How can someone cleaning the bath run it full to overflowing? Must have been some distraction!

WestonDave

On the other hand presumably the lack of overflow is visible and therefore she should have noted this and taken extra care - kind of works both ways. If the overflow had been blocked and she had no means of knowing this having not had cause to rely on it since she moved in she might have a slim chance but it will still come back to her having been daft enough to leave a running tap.

G_M

DRP wrote: »

Friend is a tenant.

As I understand it , downstairs neighbour is a tenant too.

LL via agent requesting she pay for the damage.

Whose LL? Upstairs tenant ordownstairs tenant's?

Come on. Answer the Qs:

A = leaseholder of upstairs flat.
A = landlord?
B = freeholder. Have they been contacted? What have they said? Is there insurance? Has a claim been made? By who? A? B? C?
C = leaseholder/landlord downstairs. Is C same as A or different?
D = your friend/tenant upstairs
E = tenant downstairs
F = agent for A
G= agent for C

Please confirm/amend and explian who is doing what....

DRP

G_M wrote: »

Whose LL? Upstairs tenant ordownstairs tenant's?

Come on. Answer the Qs:

A = leaseholder of upstairs flat.
A = landlord?
B = freeholder. Have they been contacted? What have they said? Is there insurance? Has a claim been made? By who? A? B? C?
C = leaseholder/landlord downstairs. Is C same as A or different?
D = your friend/tenant upstairs
E = tenant downstairs
F = agent for A
G= agent for C

Please confirm/amend and explian who is doing what....

No idea regarding the leaseholder, freeholder questions, so :

A=?
B= the discussions have solely been between my friend and her agent

As I understand it friend & neighbour downstairs share the same LL/agent

ReadingTim

I assume your friend had previously mentioned (ideally in writing) the large hole in the floor and the lack of overflow on the bath?!?

If so, then there's the potential for some "negotiation" with regard to paying for damages, but as noted above, unless the room was a fully sealed/waterproofed wet room, any amount of water has the potential to cause damage to what lies below. "Half a bucket" seems insignificant, but as anyone who's knocked a cup of tea or coffee on their desk knows, even small amounts of liquid can seem large when they're going places they're not supposed to....

If not, it does look like retrospective justification for their own carelessness, which should be treated with the contempt it deserves....