Who is liable - tenant or landlord

Guest101

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


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

You are ridiculus. The tenant does not have to be in the property 24/7.

They could go out, they could have a weekend away, they could choose to spend 72 hours in a drink and drug induced coma.

in this situation THE TANANT HAS ZERO LIABILITY

G_M

Pipes in the attic need to be insulated. Either they run on the attic floor, under the insulation, or they need tobe seperately insulated. If there is an uninsulatd pipe in the attic it will freeze whether the heating is on ro not, as the attic space is not heated.

Either get the plumber o put somthing in writing, and/or take photos of the burst pipe, showing its location (ie above the insulated floor) and lack of pipe insulation.

fishpond

The LL's problem.
I assume the LL hasn't got insurance and is trying to shift the blame.