Escape of water and dealing with the repairs

HamburgerHilll

Hi All,

Apologies for the long-ish thread but I'm looking for some practical advice on a tricky situation...

We moved into our home back in 2012 on a 12mthly AST - we renewed yearly and paid the Lettings Agent each year to change the dates on the agreement and continue. For some reason last year (Apr 2015) we dont appear to have signed the new contract and according to our previous agreement the following applies:

[FONT=&quot]If on the coming to the end of the fixed term agreed above, the Landlord does not seek possession and the Tenant remains in the Property, they will be considered, by virtue of section 5 of the Housing Act 1988, to have a statutory periodic tenancy. This will continue till ended by either party.

[/FONT]On Sunday 10th April I stupidly left the tap running in the kitchen sink before we left the house. We returned to find around 2-3inches of water on the kitchen/dining room floors and a little onto the lounge carpet. Completely my own fault and just a complete accident on my part.

He finally came to see me on Saturday and his first words were that he wasn't covered on his insurance for 'accidents' and that even if he was that I would have to pay the excess and his premiums would quadruple...he also suggested that I say the dishwasher had leaked to his insurer but that he would have to 'know nothing about it' but as I pointed out a)there is damage to the tops of cupboards which just couldn't have come from underneath the dishwasher and b) that I would be commiting fraud to claim that it did...

I'm not trying to avoid taking any responsibility or paying for my mistake and it was a genuine accident however I can't see how any damage caused to a rented home would be anything but an accident (unless it were malicious but surely no insurer would cover that?) and therefore should be covered by 'normal' buildings insurance?

Is it simply a case of negotiation if the LL digs his heels and refuses to contact his insurance company - do I just have to swallow it and pay up (we could be talking £000's rather than hundreds of pounds) or is there anything practical I can do to mitigate my loss?

The kitchen is a bespoke made job (in fact made by the LL himself) and has green units so I'm fairly certain he will be looking to do the work himself and then me to settle up with him. In any 'normal' circumstance I'd be looking to get several quotes but is that my decision or his to make given that I am paying?

Any practical thoughts would be most welcome...
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

McTaggus

Hmmm… what has been damaged and how much damage has been done? Carpets etc. may be covered by your contents insurance, but it would be worth checking as I'm not sure there's a hard and fast rule as to whether they go under buildings or contents insurance… For the kitchen, you may want to discuss the cost with him upfront that he would be planning to charge you, and then ask if you can cross-reference it with third parties just to make sure it's a fair / affordable deal if it's in the 000's.

HamburgerHilll

I originally contact my insurance company (contents only) and mistakenly was advised they would cover all flooring (tiled kitchen floor, wood floor in lounge and the living room carpet) but within a couple of days they came back to me and advised this was a mistake on their part and sent gift vouchers by way of apology.

As of today I don't know what the estimated cost is going to be (LL came Saturday and was non-commital on what he thought costs would be or even a ballpark figure which given his profession I was slightly surprised by)

To make good the damage we're talking retiling a large-ish floor plus the custom made cupboards and drawers all of which are one of a kinds and will need to be repaired/remade. I would suggest we're looking at a few thousand pounds rather than a few hundred but I think the nub of my issue is why the LL wouldn't want to go via insurance company (is it just a simple case of he doesn't want his premium to go up?) My previous AST says I would be responsible for paying his excess - but I would have done that as a matter of politeness/courtesy any way.

Pay any excess on the Landlord’s buildings insurance if the claim results from the negligence, misuse or failure to act reasonably by the Tenant or any of his visitors or friends.

pmlindyloo

I agree with you that the landlord needs to claim through his building insurance.

Put another way, you cannot insure his building and therefore could not protect yourself.

The landlord has a right to claim the excess from you (original contract terms are applicable on a SPT) and morally it is the right thing to do.

He could potentially try to charge you for the increased premiums but the insurance company usually are reluctant to say how much these are. The landlord then has the ability to change insurers and find a cheaper deal or take the loss. (it may even be tax deductible?)

I am not a landlord so would be interested to know what others who are think. I feel it is part and parcel of being a landlord to sometimes have these additional expenses. The damage wasn't malicious and accidents happen.

It could possibly be that the insurers' won't pay out (??????) - my googling suggests most do.

Certainly I would expect written verification that the insurers won't pay out if the LL says this, especially since we are talking thousands of pounds.

HamburgerHilll

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I agree with you that the landlord needs to claim through his building insurance.

Put another way, you cannot insure his building and therefore could not protect yourself.

The landlord has a right to claim the excess from you (original contract terms are applicable on a SPT) and morally it is the right thing to do.

He could potentially try to charge you for the increased premiums but the insurance company usually are reluctant to say how much these are. The landlord then has the ability to change insurers and find a cheaper deal or take the loss. (it may even be tax deductible?)

I am not a landlord so would be interested to know what others who are think. I feel it is part and parcel of being a landlord to sometimes have these additional expenses. The damage wasn't malicious and accidents happen.

It could possibly be that the insurers' won't pay out (??????) - my googling suggests most do.

Certainly I would expect written verification that the insurers won't pay out if the LL says this, especially since we are talking thousands of pounds.

Thanks for very succintly posting what I feel - I'm certainly not a problem tenant (for example we've paid to keep guttering clear and cleaned fascias etc even though it's technically the LL's responsibility) however I can't quite get my head around why he is unwilling to go to his insurer...

Any LL's see it differently? I'm just struggling to get my head around this one...

nkkingston

Are you quite sure he is insured? If the property is mortgage free, he doesn't have to have one.

HamburgerHilll

nkkingston wrote: »

Are you quite sure he is insured? If the property is mortgage free, he doesn't have to have one.

I don't KNOW he is insured....he says he is but I haven't seen the actual document. I don't believe the property is mortgage free but from memory that wasn't the case when we negotiated the rent on the tenancy back in 2012.

HamburgerHilll

Any landlords have a view/thoughts on this? I'm genuinely interested in the opposite view to mine.

fed_up_and_stressed

Not a landlord but normally accidental damage is an optional extra on insurance. So unless he has this his insurance may not pay out at all.