Who is liable - tenant or landlord

Lq1

Ended tenancy early January but moved out mid December. Was back and forward to the house every couple of days and kept heating on twice daily for a couple of hours each time. Went to the house one morning between Christmas and New Year to find part of kitchen ceiling was down and water everywhere in kitchen. We found where stop !!!! was and turned off water and drained water out of all taps. Cleared all the mess up contacted emergency out of hours for LA but got answer machine. Left message detailing what had happened but no reply to us until returned to work 5th January. LA is now blaming us as tenants for not taking enough precautions whilst being away from property for two days at most. Who do you think is liable?

Guest101

1: I'm not a qualified plumber
2: even if I was I can't see it from here

On the face of it the LL, but get a professional opinion

stu12345_2

as a council tenant, it is in my tenancy, use of the property i shall keep dwelling warm enough to prevent freezing of pipes.
if i go away on holiday i am to keep heating on a low setting and if i go away for more than 4 weeks, leave an emergency phone number.

so id say tenant at fault.

slopemaster

Did the pipes freeze?
Or was there some other cause?
You need to find out...

stu12345_2

like i said in my detailed council tenancy, it does state the dwelling shall remain warm during cold periods.eg set thermostat on low.

(not come in every few days for a burst of heat to rooms.)

what does your tenancy say.

Guest101

stu12345 wrote: »

like i said in my detailed council tenancy, it does state the dwelling shall remain warm during cold periods.eg set thermostat on low.

(not come in every few days for a burst of heat to rooms.)

what does your tenancy say.

This is irrelevant until we know the cause.

Lq1

We left the heating on all the time, not just when we were there every couple of days. A pipe burst that was right at the top of the attic near the roof space and the plumber the LA got to have a look said that it would not have mattered whether the heating was on or not.

kinger101

Lq1 wrote: »

We left the heating on all the time, not just when we were there every couple of days. A pipe burst that was right at the top of the attic near the roof space and the plumber the LA got to have a look said that it would not have mattered whether the heating was on or not.

Can you get the plumber to put that in writing?

MisterB1959

so, the cause may not have been due to the tenant, but the effects may have been. not actually mitigating the effects of the leak for a few days or even turning the water off if the property was unoccupied might have reduced your liability.


had you informed the ll you had actually moved out, perhaps a letter of surrender accepted by the ll might have clarified the matter. as it is however some of the costs might be down to you as you still occupied the property


if i were the ll i would be utilising my insurance policy, the property was not unoccupied for more than thirty days, heating had been left on, so i would be covered, especially with the written evidence of the plumber. i may ask you to help clear up the mess though, but from the information given, i wouldn't be holding you totally responsible - and i would make sure all pipes on the loft are now insulated

rpc

The attic space is cold space and neither insulated nor heated - that's why loft insulation goes on the attic floor.

In practice, the attic is a bit warmer than the outside and pipes should be insulated. Together, that stops them freezing, That's been enough for us even in the winter where temps were stuck below -10 for days on end.

Either the pipe didn't freeze and burst for some other reason, or it did freeze but the LL hadn't protected it IMHO.

What were the ambient temperatures the night that it burst?

I don't see how you could be liable in the circumstances you describe. I would write to the LA, copy the landlord and point out:
1 - the heating was left on a normal programme while you were not living there to protect against frozen pipes
2 - the burst pipe was in the attic space which is unheated and uninsulated
3 - the plumber appointed by the LA has confirmed that heating would not have prevented the burst due to the location
4 - you immediately contacted the emergency repair number but no action was taken by the LA for X days
4 - on the basis that you behaved as a responsible tenant you deny any liability

This is going to cost the landlord money - they may not be covered for the damage to the pipe and there will be an inevitable void while the water damage is repaired. Leaving the property unheated and wet for some time will only have made things worse (which is entirely down to the LA).

rpc

MisterB1959 wrote: »

so, the cause may not have been due to the tenant, but the effects may have been. not actually mitigating the effects of the leak for a few days or even turning the water off if the property was unoccupied might have reduced your liability.

had you informed the ll you had actually moved out, perhaps a letter of surrender accepted by the ll might have clarified the matter. as it is however some of the costs might be down to you as you still occupied the property

OP says they were away for two days at most.

Even if it exists, a clause that bans the tenant from being away from the property for two days would surely be unfair and unenforceable. More usually, two weeks or a month is included in the contract which may be fairer.

The OP was checking on the property frequency. Had they been in occupation but gone on holiday for a week the outcome would have been worse (shock! horror! some people go away for Christmas). That they didn't live there at the time of the burst is irrelevant as long as they were making regular visits.

Or are tenants not allowed holidays? Perhaps that right should be reserved for owner-occupiers.

If the facts are as OP describes then this probably comes down to a LL who has not adequately insulated the property. That is not the tenant's fault.