No Running Water!

suse*

Did you get it in writing (email even) that the landlord was happy to cover the cost of the hotel you picked? I think that is the main issue as others have said they might have put you up somewhere else. It might be worth trying to haggle over that at least so you can get some of the money back possibly.

This would be the same as if the leak was actually in your flat, and you called your own plumber rather than giving the landlord a chance to sort it with their own first. You have to give them a chance to sort it out for you then agree how to proceed if they won't.

What does it say, if anything, in your contract as well for situations like this?

lucy03

I doubt that the contract would spell out what to do in this situation. I imagine, from what we know, that the landlord initially didn't know it would take three days to fix, which might make a difference.

There would have to be a measure here of reasonable behaviour. The water off for an hour wouldn't require a resolution from the landlord, and possibly not over one night as one would assume the tenant could mitigate against the problem. Three nights though does seem to be a very different measure.

Paying for a hotel room might not be reasonable as the flat was habitable, perhaps offering to make arrangements to stay at another property or even making provision with a local gym to use their showers might have been an option for the landlord. A property with no access to water might not be habitable, but a property with a problem with the pipe isn't IMO the same in legal terms.

So IMO if the landlord had replied saying they were prepared to do something of this nature, and not pay for a hotel that might not be unreasonable. But since they clearly haven't made clear to the tenant what the situation was, and the tenant has now paid for a hotel, IMO the tenant would have a strong case in the small claims court.

Hintza

One thing we do know the Landlord was never informed by the OP that there was a problem. What we don't know is where the OP went to stay, they can just opt for the nearest 5* hotel as that could be disproportionate.

I find it hard to believe the landlord is liable when at no time were they informed, it doesn't even sound as if the OP attempted to inform the landlord. It isn't even clear if the landlord knew there was no water.

Anyway everything is moot as the OP hasn't been back since their second post.

marliepanda

A habitable property not only needs running water but also access to hot water. So it not having water means it wasn't habitable, just because it wasn't falling down doesn't mean it was appropriate for the OP to live in.

Its not just showering that could be provided for in a gym. No running water to flush the toilet, cook, have a cup of tea, etc. As there appeared to be no water to the whole building it wouldnt be a case of just nipping next door for a bucket of water.

I am sure a big enough stash of bottled water to flush the toilet, cook as well as paying to access gym facilities would a) be inconvenient to the tenant who is paying to have running water and cooking/washing facilities and b) possibly more expensive than staying in a hotel.

No one is saying the landlord has to pay for this out of their own pocket, but they do INITITALLY and then they can claim from the water board, or their landlord insurance, or the people who run the flat. But thats their job to do, not the tenants.

marliepanda

Hintza wrote: »

One thing we do know the Landlord was never informed by the OP that there was a problem. What we don't know is where the OP went to stay, they can just opt for the nearest 5* hotel as that could be disproportionate.

I find it hard to believe the landlord is liable when at no time were they informed, it doesn't even sound as if the OP attempted to inform the landlord. It isn't even clear if the landlord knew there was no water.

Anyway everything is moot as the OP hasn't been back since their second post.

Agreed with your last point, they havent provided any extra info. They do say in the first post that the landlord was informed, but exactly what they were informed of hasn't been elaborated upon.

lucy03

marliepanda wrote: »

A habitable property not only needs running water but also access to hot water. So it not having water means it wasn't habitable, just because it wasn't falling down doesn't mean it was appropriate for the OP to live in.

Its not just showering that could be provided for in a gym. No running water to flush the toilet, cook, have a cup of tea, etc. As there appeared to be no water to the whole building it wouldnt be a case of just nipping next door for a bucket of water.

I am sure a big enough stash of bottled water to flush the toilet, cook as well as paying to access gym facilities would a) be inconvenient to the tenant who is paying to have running water and cooking/washing facilities and b) possibly more expensive than staying in a hotel.

No one is saying the landlord has to pay for this out of their own pocket, but they do INITITALLY and then they can claim from the water board, or their landlord insurance, or the people who run the flat. But thats their job to do, not the tenants.

No, a property is still habitable if there is no running hot water. It may become an issue if that matter is prolonged, and often it isn't clear at the time how long the problem will continue for. Otherwise you'd have the situation where the water goes off for an hour and the tenant would be able to legally demand a hotel.

There is also no requirement for the alternative provided by the landlord to be the most convenient for the tenant. The measure that would always be applied by a judge where there was no obvious contract to cover the case would be one of reasonable behaviour.

IMO a judge would expect a landlord to act in a certain manner, otherwise it's not unreasonable for the tenant to act as they feel fit, if that judge considers that reasonable. If the landlord, as it appears here, hasn't made any reasonable provision then the costs of a hotel don't seem unreasonable. If the hotel is of a five star quality the judge would probably only award a partial award because the tenant didn't mitigate the costs they intended to pass onto the landlord.

I personally think the OP has a reasonable claim and should put that in a letter before action. Unless that is the OP never informed the landlord, or their agents, of the problem and that would put a different angle on proceedings.