Richlist Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 I usually send all my tenants a polite reminder around this time of the year. I remind them that they are required to leave the heating on at all times during the winter months, even if they are away for the weekends, on holiday, or visiting friends & family etc. Turning the heating down low whilst away will ensure they don't return to burst pipes. The cost of repairing any damage caused by failure to leave heating on will be the tenants responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Yes, I do this every year RL. How would you get on in the event of something going wrong? Would any tenant actually admit to not leaving the heating on? I just hope I never have to face the situation of having to make a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestnut Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 From bitter experience: 1) Set heating controller to 'continuous' , 'on', for 24hr, however 'all the time' is described on conroller - and thermostat set to minimum 12degC. (Probably costs no more fuel to run than normal periodic comfort of 21degC). 2) If any pipes in loft - remove trap to allow warmth into loft. A well insulated loft follows outside ambient temperature, not inside - I have measured it. Mains burst in loft running unoccupied and undiscovered for mere 4 days cost insurers about £50K to repair building - including 6 months lodgings for occupants, not including contents. A hard lesson! I think at such high costs, a tenant would argue that building damage consequencies are responsibility of landlord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted October 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 I think at such high costs, a tenant would argue that building damage consequencies are responsibility of landlord. Yes I agree. Insurance is likely to cover BUT there is the excess and other out of pocket expenses. I was thinking predominantly of my flats where * it's electric heating by storage & panel heaters. * there is no plumbing in the loft.....often there is no loft. * heating control is virtually none existant ie its either on or off So a burst pipe is likely to result in considerably less damage than would occour in a house.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestnut Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 "I was thinking predominantly of my flats....." I was thinking of anyone likely to read this topic!!! The loft trap point is now circulated by insurance companies. Tenants may not know whether or not there's plumbing in loft. "So a burst pipe is likely to result in considerably less damage than would occour in a house." Not necessarily in terms of % value, and certainly not if there's another flat or more damaged underneath! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.