Plumber caused damage to my ceiling and it fell!

buggy_boy

In defence of the plumbers it may not have been poor workmanship, sometimes things are very old and things can break very easily.

Accidents happen, that is why you have insurance, I can't see how it is the landlords fault, there was an issue, if it were not a rental something like this could still happen and you would claim off your contents insurance, that is why you have contents insurance. You could argue you could claim against the liability insurance of the plumbers but I think the my previous paragraph would cover them as defence as it was not specifically their fault.

Sometimes things happen, annoying as it might be I can't really see anyone has done anything negligent, maybe the plumbers if its found they did not clean up the leak well enough.

Smodlet

AdrianC wrote: »

Contents cover, for the damaged contents.

It's the landlord's problem whether he claims for the ceiling on his insurance, makes the plumber cough up, or just dips into his own pocket for that. The ceiling and plumbing is his responsibility.


Don't be melodramatic. It's just a missing bit of plasterboard.

You're being a landlord, AdrianC; think of it from the OP's point of view: How is it their problem their computer has been damaged because their LL engaged useless plumbers? Why should they have to wreck their no claims status to suit their LL? Uh-uh.

I am not being melodramatic; LLs never have to live in the Hells they create, do they? Why should anyone who does not own their property have to live with even part of a missing ceiling unless they caused the damage? Tenants pay to live in a place in the state they viewed it, after all.

Dannydrock

With that in mind, would it not be negligence as they did not inform anyone of the incident and claimed it was safe to stay/sleep in the room and it was fine?

buggy_boy

chunkytfg wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that coincidence that 2 leaks in separate rooms happen to both drip onto computers?!

Im guessing the leak was above a separating wall between two rooms, often these walls have a socket roughly in the same position either side of the wall, this is done as it makes an electricians life a lot easier, check out your own house, as long as its large enough I am sure you will find where a socket is one side of the wall there is sometimes a socket the other side.

Given that a lot of properties that have not been rewired have very few sockets in a bedroom it would not seem to be too much of a stretch of the imagination that the computers and desk would be next to a socket.

buggy_boy

Smodlet wrote: »

You're being a landlord, AdrianC; think of it from the OP's point of view: How is it their problem their computer has been damaged because their LL engaged useless plumbers? Why should they have to wreck their no claims status to suit their LL? Uh-uh.

I am not being melodramatic; LLs never have to live in the Hells they create, do they? Why should anyone who does not own their property have to live with even part of a missing ceiling unless they caused the damage? Tenants pay to live in a place in the state they viewed it, after all.

I think you are being melodramatic, how as the Landlord been negligent in his/her duties?

I don't think the landlord is asking the tenants to pay for the ceiling, that is the responsibility of the landlord and the OP has in no way said the landlord will not fix that or expect them to live in a place with a missing ceiling.

Leaks and accidents happen in all houses, rented and owned, thats why you have contents insurance, as a landlord I think I would offer to pay any excess as a gesture of good will...

If they have a £50,000 painting that had been damaged would the landlords be liable for that?

AdrianC

Smodlet wrote: »

You're being a landlord, AdrianC; think of it from the OP's point of view: How is it their problem their computer has been damaged because their LL engaged useless plumbers? Why should they have to wreck their no claims status to suit their LL? Uh-uh.

Did the OP move his computer as soon as the first leak was spotted?
Were the plumbers at fault? We have no idea. They may have been dealing with nasty historic pipework and a valve that simply gave up the ghost as soon as they looked at it. They may have sorted the leak they found, but missed one hidden underneath insulation.

There's a myriad of things that may and could and perhaps and what if. But what's the quickest and easiest solution? Contents insurance.

Why should anyone who does not own their property have to live with even part of a missing ceiling unless they caused the damage?

As soon as everything's dried out, it's a trivially quick and easy job to replace the plasterboard, skim and paint. Yes, it'd be nice if something was put over the hole as a stopgap...

But if the landlord was to say "You're right, it's uninhabitable. The tenancy is frustrated. You are released from the tenancy, and are free to move as soon as you can." - then what? Who does that benefit? Does being given a reservation number at the local Premier Inn or Travelodge help - or, worse, some iffy B&B - help anybody?

Smodlet

Whatever the truth of the plumbers' competence or lack thereof the facts, according to the OP, are that two computers have been damaged by a leak which has also damaged the ceiling or ceilings of a rented property if I understand correctly.

If this is the case, the LL should be liable and should claim on his insurance to rectify both the damage to his property and to recompense his tenants for their loss or losses.

Trying to pass the buck and expecting tenants to wait for insurance companies to pursue each other for losses is just what the rich do to avoid responsibility and to off-load their losses on to the poor, imho; in other words, the same BS we get from politicians.

buggy_boy

Smodlet wrote: »

Whatever the truth of the plumbers' competence or lack thereof the facts, according to the OP, are that two computers have been damaged by a leak which has also damaged the ceiling or ceilings of a rented property if I understand correctly.

If this is the case, the LL should be liable and should claim on his insurance to rectify both the damage to his property and to recompense his tenants for their loss or losses.

Trying to pass the buck and expecting tenants to wait for insurance companies to pursue each other for losses is just what the rich do to avoid responsibility and to off-load their losses on to the poor, imho; in other words, the same BS we get from politicians.

Can you explain how the landlord is liable? If you bought a car and then it broke down on the way to the airport while still under warranty would the garage that sold you the car be liable to compensate you for your holiday?

Why would any tenant bother getting contents insurance, I mean if someone broke in and stole their belongings sure thats the landlords fault for not have a secure enough door?

If you were on a street and someone accidentally bumped into you and knocked your phone out of your hand is that person then liable to buy you a replacement phone?

Linton

Smodlet wrote: »

Whatever the truth of the plumbers' competence or lack thereof the facts, according to the OP, are that two computers have been damaged by a leak which has also damaged the ceiling or ceilings of a rented property if I understand correctly.

If this is the case, the LL should be liable and should claim on his insurance to rectify both the damage to his property and to recompense his tenants for their loss or losses.

Trying to pass the buck and expecting tenants to wait for insurance companies to pursue each other for losses is just what the rich do to avoid responsibility and to off-load their losses on to the poor, imho; in other words, the same BS we get from politicians.

- If the OP claimed for the computers on his contents insurance they would be replaced quickly and he would not have to wait for the insurance companies to fight things out.
- If the OP claimed off the landlord he would only be entitled to the value of the used, possibly old, equipment which could be virtually zero. By claiming off his own contents insurance he probably has new for old cover.

Smodlet

buggy_boy wrote: »

Can you explain how the landlord is liable? If you bought a car and then it broke down on the way to the airport while still under warranty would the garage that sold you the car be liable to compensate you for your holiday?

Why would any tenant bother getting contents insurance, I mean if someone broke in and stole their belongings sure thats the landlords fault for not have a secure enough door?

If you were on a street and someone accidentally bumped into you and knocked your phone out of your hand is that person then liable to buy you a replacement phone?

You are being ridiculous. As AdrianC said, without pictures we have no idea of the context of the situation; it may be entirely habitable, it may not be.

I still do not see why tenants should not be compensated for having to live in a property in a materially worse condition than it was when they signed the tenancy agreement. It is not the same as home ownership; you are paying for something in at least as good a condition as when you rented it excepting damage you cause yourself.

Yes, claiming on contents insurance may be the "quickest" solution but I still fail to see why tenants should suffer any financial loss for a problem caused by something for which their LL is liable. Just because some LL's might offer to pay the excess does not mean the OP's will and does not begin to address the increase in premiums a claim will cause.