Landlord didn't consult me for the costs of the repairs

parking_question_chap

What did they landlords letter say?

Was it just a copy of the bill. I did they have a cover letter stating why they expect you to pay?

I would suggest not paying anything yet, as it might be considered an admission of negligence.

davidmcn

Landlord should be mitigating their loss, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need to choose the cheapest possible quote. Do you have evidence of what it ought to have cost?

illusionek wrote: »

I am under impression your landlord should have insurance in place for situation like this.

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

He should have insurance for this.

As I said on the other thread, that doesn't help if the OP has been negligent, as it just means the insurers would be suing them instead. And they'd still be liable to the landlord for any excess.

always_sunny

You keep looking at this as the LL is 'repairing' something broken but really he's fixing what you have damaged.

In your other thread you also admitted culpability:

Alexandra93 wrote: »

I used to flush flushable wet wipes in the toilets. It apparently clogged the toilets below and it also caused some water leaks out of the drain. This is the water leaks which caused some damages to the flat below.

If not you, who should pay for this?
- LL did not flush them
- Insurance will not cover them
- tenant below you did not flush them

After paying for the damage, maybe you can sue the wipes manufacturer for misrepresentation.

G_M

The tenancy agreement is irrelevant in this instance.

And the 'landlord' is not (I imagine!) claiming this as a landlord against his tenant.

What appears to have happened is

* the occupant of upper flat has caused a flood which has damaged the lower flat
* this ocupant happens to be a tenant but that is not pertinant
* the owner/leaseholder of the lower flat is claiming the consequential costs of the flood, presumably on the grounds of negligence
* this owner/leaseholder happens to be a landlord but that is not pertinant

The questions then are

a) was the occupant negligent?
i) If the wetwipes were labelled as 'flushable', then it is is arguably not negligent to flush them
ii) a defence on this basis could be put forward if it went to court
iii) but if the occupant continued to flush the wetwipes after the problem was brought to his attentin, that would consititute negligence.

b) was the cost claimed reasonable? If the defendant (occupant of upper flat) could show the amount claimed was unreasonable, any claim would be reduced (if in court). The claimant would be wise toproduce 2+ quites to justify his claim

antrobus

Whether this is relevant, I do not know. But, according to the water companies, there is no such thing as a 'flushable' wet wipe.

In the UK alone, water companies spend approximately £88m of customers’ money clearing an estimated 360,000 blockages annually in the sewerage network. Half of these blockages are avoidable and are caused by the incorrect disposal of wet wipes and other hygiene products via toilets.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/26/uk-water-firms-call-for-do-not-flush-labelling-on-wet-wipes

AdrianC

Where are you getting this £2,500 figure from?
Has this "other company" actually visited the flat and given an estimate or, better, a firm quotation? Or is it a bit of guesswork?

Arleen

The answer to op is very simple - get proper, paid, legal advice. There are quite a few parties in this whole mess that may have been negligent (you, the manufacturer of wipes, the guy who cleaned the pipes) and to get heads and tails of it one have to go, accurately, through all the details, not second/third-hand descriptions. It won't be cheap, but a lot cheaper than 5000 pounds.

robatwork

Do you still have the packaging of the flushable wet wipes?

This goes to the heart of your "negligence" so is vital in assigning blame.