You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A freind of mine rents a property and the washing machine has leaked and caused damage to the property.
The landlords have said they inspected and said there was a hair clip in the washer and a piece of plastic and are now billing her for re plastering and re papering the room that was damaged.
where does she stand with this legally?
I would say the landlord doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is why they have insurance. Can they prove the hair clip caused the damage? Is there an independent witness who saw the washing machine disassembly? Did it damage the door seal or something?
Even so, your friend would never have deliberately put something that might damage the washing machine; it's an accident and that should be the end of it.
What you have here is someone trying it on. I'd be wondering whether he forgot to renew his insurance, or more likely, whether it even covers a building he's let out.
Recommend Citizens Advice, they should help.
Cynical landlord here - how do the bits in the washer cause a leak? If its tenant negligence it is their cost, both sides have to prove their guilt or innocence. Usually any small item in the washer will get stuck in the filter at the bottom and stop the washer.
I d investigate further.
Cheers for opinions, really helpful tohave both sides of the argument.
flr the record, I was wrong it was a safety pin not a hair clip. And she doesn’t use safety pins, she’s also only been in the property for 7 months.
Does the engineer's report show exactly when the items in question entered the washing machine? Unless it was brand new at the start of the tenancy, it's hard to see how your friend is definitively to blame.
As above, that is what insurance is for.
LL here. Bring on the flames.
Legally no idea! However I doubt a piece of plastic and a hairgrip would cause a leak of any magnitude. Can the LL <span style="text-decoration: underline;">prove</span> that the debris wasn't in the machine when your friend took on the tenancy? She needs legal advice/representation and should counter-sue immediately for loss of amenity.
D.
I use a standard ast contract with my tenants, washer provided by me as ll. Anyway, tenant complained washer was stuck mid cycle so i went round and found a bit of bikini stuck in the filter. 5 min job so just cleared obstruction and showed tenant how to fix if it happened again.
Happened to mention to agent who manages other tenants, but not mine as i do it. Anyway, he said tenant was responsible and should have paid, it was 6months into tenancy so tenant had used the washer, obstruction caused by tenant so her liability to repair.
Some ast s even stipulate tap washers are tenant liability.
Isnt the above consequential liability? Ianal but if t is responsible and causes further damage i think it is.
Surly its accidental and an insurance job. What if she accidentally burned the house down, say cooking dinner, would she have to pay for a new house?
How did the safety pin and piece of plastic cause the washer to leak?
Is there proof that these were not present when current tenant moved in?
The landlord should have building insurance, covering such issues.
IANAL but sounds like a cowboy landlord to me, from info given so far, the tenant has no financial responsibility for this.
There was a case where the tenant burned the house down, it was a thatched cottage, or may been a flood. Anyway the landlord insured the buildings but the ins took the tenant to court to prove his negligence. I m pretty sure the ins won and the tenant had to pay something like 100k. Insurance cos aren't charities, any whiff of negligence they 're after someone.
Edit - ins lost court case persuing tenant for damages. It was a flood, 128k damage.
It's a building insurance job, so the landlords responsibility.
Moreso if the washing machine was part of the lease They could try to prove negligence with the paperclip washing machine scenario, but as said above, it would be an interesting one.
There was a case where the tenant burned the house down, it was a thatched cottage, or may been a flood. Anyway the landlord insured the buildings but the ins took the tenant to court to prove his negligence. I m pretty sure the ins won and the tenant had to pay something like 100k. Insurance cos aren’t charities, any whiff of negligence they ‘re after someone.
Arson or fire caused by flood damage..?
Exactly what poolman says. My immediate reaction was Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd [1986] but his is even more pertinent.
Basically, a tenant pays rent and makes a contract with a landlord and in that contract it will state that the landlord is responsible for insuring the building. Thus the tenant in renting the property is paying at least partially for the insurance and can be considered to be a co-insured, even if not named on the policy.
What that means is the landlord claims from his insurer and they cannot recover from the tenant, even if the tenant is proven to have caused the loss through their negligence.
TL :DR Tell landlord to piss off and you'll see him in court. Also find a new place to live cos it sounds like he's a cowboy.