Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jo F

Emergency in the house

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone, 

My tenant called tonight to say that she had come back from a shift and found that the house was covered in water and that there was a leak in the bathroom (House is a two up two down). I sent my husband down to have a look and see what he could do, but it appears that her dog had chewed through the flexi hose leading to the toilet and the main copper pipe leading into the bathroom. It must have been leaking all day as the floor down stairs was covered in about an inch of water, the leak has also soaked the fuse box (so no electrics), it has come through the floor so the ceilings in the hallway and kitchen are ruined, the walls are soaking (all plasterboard), the electric boiler has also had water running over it so that has blown also. Basically the house is un-livable. 

So I have contacted my insurance company to see what can be done and what will be covered. They are hopefully contacting me back. My question is, where do I stand on re-housing? The tenant is a private tenant so she will probably need to find somewhere else to live. Am I liable for this cost even though her bloody dog has caused the issue? Help me guys I don't really know what to do as I have never been in this situation before.

Any advice is gratefully appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That s an awful thing to happen, you have my sympathy and I hope you get it sorted quickly.

I've always avoided letting to tenants with pets but I have to admit........a dog chewing through  a water pipe was not one of the risks I had ever considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tenant is certainly liable for any loss you suffer and if you claim from the insurance the tenant is also liable for any excess limit.

Do you have to re-house? No. If the the insurance covers for temporary accomodation fine but if not,  no you do not. If the council get involved they might well say you have to but that is because they dont want the cost themselves. Ask them to provide the details within the housing act or any other statuet that puts the legal obligation on you. They wont be able to because there is no rule, act of Parliament or case law which provides in the event of a property rendered uninhabitable by some disaster that the landlord must start ringing round accommodation providers or hotels, arranging alternative accommodation but the local authority does have a duty to.

Even though a landlord doesnt have an obligation to re-house they COULD have an obligation to pay the costs for temorary accomodation ONLY if the cause of the property being uninhabitablel was due to a failure of the landlords repairing obligations and failing to act on something he knew about or was reported. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Grampa said:

Even though a landlord doesnt have an obligation to re-house they COULD have an obligation to pay the costs for temorary accomodation ONLY if the cause of the property being uninhabitablel was due to a failure of the landlords repairing obligations and failing to act on something he knew about or was reported. 

 

 

This is where I often disagree with the law.......

In court a smart lawyer might argue:

The landlord knew the tenant had a dog,  knew the dog had sharp teeth and knew that dogs like to chew. It's reasonable to assume that the landlord would also be aware that a flexible hose can be chewed thru but nevertheless was happy to accept those risks. Therefore it could be argued that the landlord failed to act on something he knew about.

I rest my case!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Richlist said:

This is where I often disagree with the law.......

In court a smart lawyer might argue:

The landlord knew the tenant had a dog,  knew the dog had sharp teeth and knew that dogs like to chew. It's reasonable to assume that the landlord would also be aware that a flexible hose can be chewed thru but nevertheless was happy to accept those risks. Therefore it could be argued that the landlord failed to act on something he knew about.

I rest my case!

I object M'lord. In fact it is the manufacturer  of the hose  who is at fault  they must have reasonbly  expected a household to have a dog and therefore should have made the hose dog proof and the hose wasnt fit for purpose.

I really think I have far too much time on my hands.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...