Lodger flooded 2nd floor bathroom of flats

aneary

someanonbloke wrote: »

Ban cars and then there'll be no accidents. Problem solved.

A, You need a licence to drive
B, Bad drivers get banned.

You sadly don't need to have a licence to rent rooms and you can't get banned.

someanonbloke

Comms69

Your entire attitude is that essentially it's all my fault and I should suck it up. It almost feels like you've got an axe to grind. I've stated the situation as honestly as possible but you go on the offensive. I wonder what I'm not seeing here and what you're hiding behind that computer screen.

someanonbloke

You sadly don't need to have a licence to rent rooms and you can't get banned.

Bad lodgers/tenants don't get banned do they? How far do you want to go with these dialectics.

moneyistooshorttomention

aneary wrote: »

No the owner can pursue you for costs.

The owner does not have a contract with the lodgers you do.

Therefore go to the owner and find out the repair costs, he should mitigate the lost by claiming on his insurance or ask you to claim on your insurance.

The excess should be the only loss.
- If your insurance take that out of the lodger's deposit.
- If it' the LL's insurance he will ask you to pay (or take it out of your deposit) and you then pass the loss onto the lodger.

Sounds like the best way forward imo - and, if the lodger deposit isnt sufficient to cover the costs still payable after the insurance company has paid whatever-they-pay towards this - then you take the lodger to the small claims court to make up the difference.

I'd also be looking round for another lodger in your position - as this one sounds too irresponsible to keep.

Comms69

someanonbloke wrote: »

Comms69

Your entire attitude is that essentially it's all my fault and I should suck it up. - I have passed absolutely no moral judgment on you whatsoever. I have just stated your legal position. It almost feels like you've got an axe to grind. I've stated the situation as honestly as possible but you go on the offensive. I wonder what I'm not seeing here and what you're hiding behind that computer screen.

Uhm nothing. Happily join you for a pint, but wont be renting any rooms thank you very much


Look the situation is simple


A owns the lease (your LL)
B (you)
C (your lodgers)


A cannot pursue C, so must pursue B - inline with tenancy agreement (or basic tenancy law)


You can pursue C, once you know how much you stand to lose.


You cannot keep C's deposit, as you have suffered no loss at this stage.

aneary

someanonbloke wrote: »

Bad lodgers/tenants don't get banned do they? How far do you want to go with these dialectics.

You tenant isn't actually bad, unless you have missed something it looks like an accident and that is what insurance is for.

If you let to others you have to accept that the chances of an accident is greater but you are receiving money from the others which should compensate the greater risk.

someanonbloke

You cannot keep C's deposit, as you have suffered no loss at this stage.

I can easily claim, and will claim, that withholding the deposit in these circumstances is entirely reasonable...until the situation has been investigated.

AnotherJoe

And whose to say its the lodgers fault? If the left the bath running, the overflow should have taken care of that. If there isnt an overflow, or its not working properly, thats not the fault of the lodger so they could dispute you withholding the deposit.

Comms69

someanonbloke wrote: »

I can easily claim, and will claim, that withholding the deposit in these circumstances is entirely reasonable...until the situation has been investigated.

.... Then you'll be the one taken to small claims court.....


On which note, I too am out. Some people don't want help or advice, just a reinforcement of the incorrect assumptions.

LEJC

Please don't feed the trolls......