Damage caused by Third party we HAD to use

haveaguiness

Hi Everyone, I hope someone is able to offer some guidance...

In our tenancy agreement, we need to ensure that whitegoods are kept in working order. Our washer dryer recently packed up and so we notified the Landlord

In our agreement, it states that we HAVE to use the "manufacturer's own repair service" and the landlord passed on the details of his parts Warranty but we would need to pay for the call out. We had no choice in who to contract for the work.

When the engineer pulled the washer dryer out to perform the repair, he scratched the wooden flooring. This happened because when it was installed (done by the landlord's own fitter) it had had a screw put through the rubber foot in order to stop it moving...

Our landlord has now proceeded to state that as we called out the manufacturer we are at fault and must pay for the damage as per our tenancy agreement. Out of good faith and to get the ball rolling we have started proceedings with the manufacturer for them to pay for the repair, however, I believe they will only pay for a certain amount, taking into account the age of the floor, wear and tear etc. Or they may even refuse to pay, bearing in mind someone put a screw through the foot!

As the floor goes throughout our flat, it looks like the only way to repair it is to sand the entire floor and reseal it - at a cost of around £1400

We are also due to move out of the flat within the next 6 weeks.

I was wondering whether anyone would be able to offer some advice and where we would stand legally were the manufacturer to come back and only pay for some or none of the repair bearing in mind:

1. We had no choice who the contractor could be, this was forced by the landlord and the AST
2. The screw was put in the foot by the landlord's installer at the time of fitting
3. If they do offer to only pay "some" of the costs, should the landlord pick up the rest?

I thank you all in advance for your help and suggestions.

Dan

molerat

The damage was caused by an inappropriate modification carried out by the landlord or his agent. Tell him to swivel and argue the case if he refuses to return your deposit. The engineer should not have to check if some idiot has modified the foot nor should he be held responsible for the damage caused. Small areas of damage should be repairable without sanding a whole floor.

haveaguiness

Thanks for the reply molerat and that is exactly the position I think we will take if it comes to it. Didn't know whether legally we would have a footing on this though?

In regards to the floor, we have had a specialist round to quote for the work so we can provide the manufacturer in question with the costs and they advised because of the ageing of the floor the only way to get it so it doesn't look completely out of place is to do the whole thing. We have another one coming round tomorrow so will see if they suggest the same...

melstar11

Can the scratch not be filled with coloured wax? It would be ridiculous to sand the entire floor and the end result would potentially be betterment as there would be no reasonable wear and tear to the floor, it would effectively be as though it had never been walked on or had any furniture stood on it. If the LL chooses to sand the floor it then that should be at his cost.

rtho782

I'm not convinced that his contract term stating you must pay to repair his white goods would stand up. It's an unfair term.

Otherwise every LL would just include terms saying you are responsible for boiler breakdowns etc.

The fact that you have to use a specified repairer makes it even more unfair.

I would tell him he can take you to court if he likes.

sheff6107

You merely made the arrangements for the landlord's agent to attend the property and carry out work for him.

You have no legal liability. If the landlord's agent damaged the property, the landlord is liable to you for any damage and the repairer is liable to him.

I think you need to take a step back and tell the landlord you have taken legal advice and you are under no liability and have provided quotes as a goodwill gesture but it his reponsibility of liase with his agent and decide what to do.

You're leaving in 6 weeks anyway and presumably the deposit is in a scheme and you will get it back.

If the landlord just replaced white goods instead of being a cheapskate he might not have problem he now has.

haveaguiness

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think our course of action will be that we send all the details off to the manufacturer and let them decide. It may be that they foot the entire bill, in which case, no issues. The likelihood is though, that they won't. If they don't then we will be passing this back to the landlord advising that we have done our part as goodwill and that he must now top up the amount required, or if the manufacturer will pay nothing that he must challenge the manufacturer on this. We can simply pass the account over to him.

I think stating that we had no choice in the contractor we had to use and the screw being installed by himself/his installer would easily be enough for us to not have to warrant paying anything even if he thinks he can hide behind a clause in the AST, although as you have pointed out, these would likely be determined unfair. Additionally, we would have been very accommodating in pushing this forward in the first instance, which would most likely go in our favour, especially if a % of the repair is paid for.

Sheff6107, yes the deposit is in a protection scheme and we have already spoken to them, although they were unable to give too much advice at this point. If needs be he can go that route, but as above I think we are in a strong position from what you have all stated.

Interestingly, this whole process has given me a lot more knowledge in terms of the deposit and how to challenge certain amounts the LL will try to bill for, so I will also be doing that when we move out as well! Can't wait to own our own home after all this!!!

pinkshoes

I would not be paying for ANY of the charge, including the call out fee.

The LL is playing you for a mug!!

Unless it broke through misuse, then it is not your job to pay for it to be fixed!!

haveaguiness

Thanks for the reply pinkshoes. We did research this and get some advice when we moved in and the LL is well within his rights to put the responsibility onto the tenant for whitegoods (section 11, Landlord & Tenant Act 1985), this doesn't include things like the boiler and gas hob though, which are his responsibilities.

What is unfair here, we believe, is that we have been forced to use the repairer he wants to use, who have then caused the damage. If we contracted someone who caused the damage then fair enough...

saajan_12

haveaguiness wrote: »

I think stating that we had no choice in the contractor we had to use and the screw being installed by himself/his installer would easily be enough for us to not have to warrant paying anything even if he thinks he can hide behind a clause in the AST, although as you have pointed out, these would likely be determined unfair.

I wouldn’t be arguing against the clause to maintain white goods as this actually helps you.

The damage was caused by either (or both) of two physical factors:
1) the screw on the machine
2) the repairer dragging out the machine (should they have checked / stopped when they heard a slight scratching sound?)

(1) is definitely your LL’s problem to go after their installer. With (2) if it was a repairer of your choosing, the LL can claim off you and it is up to you to sue the manufacturer. However the clause that you must maintain white goods using this person/company means that effectively the repairer is your LL’s chosen agent not yours which means the LL would have to go after them without making it your problem.

eddddy

The only way that the engineer is liable is if he was negligent.

It doesn't sound like the engineer was negligent. (i.e. a reasonable person would not expect a screw to be protruding from the bottom of a washing machine.)


I'd suggest that the LL was negligent - by providing you with a washing machine with a screw protruding. So the LL is liable for the consequential damage.

(The LL may in turn have a negligence claim against whoever he paid to put that screw in his washing machine.)