Damage caused by Third party we HAD to use

david1951

What part of section 11 are you referring to (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/70/section/11).

Based on a (very) brief review this doesn't seem to apply, as subsection 1 (b) specifically excludes "appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity" from being covered by this section.

I am willing to stand corrected. In any case, as others have pointed out it is irrelevant, since the damage wasn't caused as a result of your, or your agent's negligence.

haveaguiness

eddddy, thanks for the reply. That is exactly what I was thinking in regards to being negligent. You would simply not expect someone to put a screw through the foot of an appliance to hold it in place. Coupled with the fact the screw was so small it likely wouldn't have done anything anyway.

The problem here is if the manufacturer then came back stating this (which as it is going through their insurance department will be most likely), the LL will try and hold us to account.

I think I am going to consult a solicitor before contacting the Landlord so I have full clarification on this. It is really starting to annoy me that the LL feels he can pressure us into getting the repair done!

teddysmum

I agree,that the screws caused the problem and that the repair person should not reasonably be expected to predict this.


The argument that he should have stopped moving the machine,when hearing a slight scraping noise , is void, as it could very well have been the noise caused by the flexible hoses catching on the kitchen cabinet.


The repairing of white goods clause does seem unfair, as though it is reasonable for someone to put right anything caused by their own negligence (eg putting cooking foil on a ceramic hob),they should not have to maintain a possibly old item, which would have worn out due to age/years of regular use.

haveaguiness

Thanks to everyone for their advice a few weeks back. I thought I would give a quick update as this has now taken another turn...

For ease to get this sorted we sent everything off to the manufacturer, including 2 quotes as requested. Surprisingly, they have actually agreed to pay for the full repair, which is actually quite a large amount in the end as the whole floor throughout the property needs to be done so that it doesn't look out of place.

All through this process, our landlord has told us to deal with the manufacturer to get the repair done and for them to pay for it - we even asked the Landlord to send someone round to give us a quote, but he didn't want to provide one. We have done this, but as the chosen company said the best time to do it will be when we move out of the flat (which is in 4 weeks) I wanted to pass on the landlord's contact details to them so he can arrange this for when we are no longer in the property.

When I told the landlord this and advised why (because the property needs to be empty) to my shock, the landlord has now stated that the repair is "problematic" and wants ALL documentation sent to him. He has not stated why it is problematic, but both quotes we got highlighted the same repair required.

We have sent one final polite but strongly worded email to the Landlord now as we have done everything asked and believe he really is now trying to just be annoying. If he continues to be, do you think we are within our rights to say the deposit people can deal with it and we can provide the proof that the manufacturer is willing to pay for the repair and that we have done everything we can to perform the repair?

eddddy

haveaguiness wrote: »

We have done this, but as the chosen company said the best time to do it will be when we move out of the flat (which is in 4 weeks) I wanted to pass on the landlord's contact details to them so he can arrange this for when we are no longer in the property.

When I told the landlord this and advised why (because the property needs to be empty) to my shock, the landlord has now stated that the repair is "problematic" and wants ALL documentation sent to him. He has not stated why it is problematic, but both quotes we got highlighted the same repair required.

I'd guess the LL means it's problematic because...

It's your responsibility to get the repairs done (apparently), so the LL expects you to do them before your tenancy ends.

And/or...

The floor laying company needs to be given access to the flat and be supervised - and you won't be there to do it. (So the LL will have to find somebody else to do that.)