Accidental Water Damage - who pays?

[Malbert]

We are in a rented house, in the utility room there is cupboard under the sink with a hot and cold feed pipe tot eh washing machine – the cold pipe is connected to the washing machine, the hot pipe just sat there with the tap at the end switched off.
We had items in the cupboard such as bags of nappies etc. The other week we went into the utility room to find it flooded and steaming – the tap had turned on – I can only assume the something must have moved inside the cupboard and knocked on the tap.
The result is warping the the worktop, the cupboard under the sink and its doors and warping the the laminate flooring – boy I felt and still feel sick.
I phoned AXA my contents insurance who tell me that they will not pay up as these are fixtures and fittings thus the responsibility of the landlord – thus he needs to claim off his buildings insurance.
I’ve spoken the landlord who apart from being furious, refuses to claim off his insurance and instead wants me to pay for the damage out my own pocket – I advised that I’m willing to pay his excess.
So who has to pay – me as the tenant out my own pocket, even though it was genuine accidental damage, or the landlords buildings insurance. If the damage was £100 I wouldn’t argue, but we are probably talking a lot of money.

[leaseholdanswers]

For you to be negligient he has to prove fault. Where these taps are left unconected Home Depot and all good plumbers sell caps to stop this happening.....

if there is disrepair, eg the warped floor you can take action for him to carry out repairs by giving him notice to do so, proceeding to ADR for repairs or calling on the local authority.

[johnjw]

This is a genuine and unfortunate accident. It's easy to see how such an accident could occur. Under-sink cupboards have poor visibility, the cupboard fills up and perhaps some of the contents press against the tap and turn it slightly.
I think your LL should claim off his insurance and - yes, your offer to pay the excess, is reasonable. I can understand the LL being annoyed, but accidents happen and that is what insurance is for.
If you extend the principle to a much worse accident, where something you did accidentally - say a fire resulted- causes massive structural damage, then clearly the LL would have to claim on his insurance.
I hope compromise and common-sense will solve the problem.

[Malbert]

Thank you so much, feel a bit better now. Went to cab they said the same. Will keep you posted

[MrJohnnyB]

Do you know what the excess is? I wouldnt be suprised if it is actually higher than the cost of repair.

[mind the gap]

Do you know what the excess is? I wouldnt be suprised if it is actually higher than the cost of repair.

I would be.

It will not just be case of buying replacement sections of work surface and new laminate for the floor, but paying someone to fit them. The average LL's buildings insurance excess is £100-£200. A bit optimistic!

[property mongrel]

Is the tap in question a chrome fitting with a red coloured lever attached, that if turned across the pipe is "off" and if turned in line with the pipe is "on"?

If this is the sort of pipe you have accidentally nudged to the "on" position and caused a flood and damage I do not agree that the LL is at fault or should pay or claim for on his/her insurance.

There seems to have been nothing wrong with the tap, until it was nudged or knocked or whatever term you use, it did it's job and isolated the supply. If the tap weeped or leaked even in the "off" position as some of these do, as the rubber washer inside perishes and can fail, that would be a different matter, that would be a lack of maintenance and down to the LL to make good. Is there any evidence that the tap was failing prior to the incident, old water staining on the cupboard surface?

If you accidentaly left a bath tap running and flooded the bathroom etc would you expect the LL to pay for any resulting damage?

pm

[mind the gap]

If you accidentaly left a bath tap running and flooded the bathroom etc would you expect the LL to pay for any resulting damage?

pm

But if a T accidentally started a fire which caused thousands of pounds of damage, the LL's property insurance would cover it. Isn't that the same thing?

I think the only exclusion to this principle is where the T does damage maliciously/deliberately , as opposed to accidentally or negligently.

In OP's case LL should claim but charge the insurance excess to his T.

OP's insurance premiums are likely to rise in future years though as a result of the claim - how can he mitigate that loss?

[property mongrel]

"But if a T accidentally started a fire which caused thousands of pounds of damage, the LL's property insurance would cover it. Isn't that the same thing?"

I wonder if the LL's insurance would cover it? Isn't this the reason why a T should take out their own insurance and why some tenancy agreements expressly require it?

Unless the position is clarified then T may be liable for this, and liable for anything else that happens if it happens as a result of their negligence or accidental action.

pm

[leaseholdanswers]

I wonder if the LL's insurance would cover it? Isn't this the reason why a T should take out their own insurance and why some tenancy agreements expressly require it?

Unless the position is clarified then T may be liable for this, and liable for anything else that happens if it happens as a result of their negligence or accidental action.

pm

The insurers would resolve it between them as two parties are ensuring the same risks ( assuming they have the correct insurance).

No the landlord is responsible to repair and the burden of proof is on him to show the tenant was negligent

[property mongrel]

No the landlord is responsible to repair and the burden of proof is on him to show the tenant was negligent

Which goes back to the original query, if the T caused the damage by turning a tap on, albeit inadvertently, are they not responsible? LL shows that water did not leak for however long, T moves in and one day water leaks.

pm

[Malbert]

Mould is now growing in the cupboard, the chipboard is damp under the cupboard and I'm worried the damage could be serious. Landlord is not communicating with. Not responded to my texts. I appreciate he upset, but he needs to have a look and address it.

[Malbert]

No the landlord is responsible to repair and the burden of proof is on him to show the tenant was negligent

Which goes back to the original query, if the T caused the damage by turning a tap on, albeit inadvertently, are they not responsible? LL shows that water did not leak for however long, T moves in and one day water leaks.

pm

In all honestly I really am baffled as to what turned on the tap, I made the assumption that something fell and knocked the tap on, but I really don't know, the cupboard hadn't even been opened that day for what I can recall. But Logically something must have caused the tap to turn on

The most stressful part is that the landlord has not made any contact with me for two weeks since he told me that he will decide what to do and let me know. I texted him last week to tell him that the floor under the cupboard is still damp, I asked him if he wanted me to take up the laminate to see if there was water sitting under it, I also asked him to come and have a look or send someone on his behalf to look (eg insurance company) - he has not responded to that text, or made any contact with me. I'm now worried that if there is water under the laminate flooring or even under the house that the damage could be huge and the longer it is left the worse it'll get.

I daren't call him because of his aggressive attitude and the difficulty in legally keeping track of the communication.

Oh wish I could afford a Lawyer!

[Malbert]

Another question - if he did claim off his insurance (I don't know what the excess will be), how much high would next years premium likely be? Are we talking ten or twenty pounds or hundreds?

[johnjw]

Another question - if he did claim off his insurance (I don't know what the excess will be), how much high would next years premium likely be? Are we talking ten or twenty pounds or hundreds?

Your LL is not behaving responsibly or sensibly. Water damage needs to be dealt with quickly as delay is likely to increase the cost of repair. From your description, there is considerable damage and the repairs will have to be done through insurance. You as the tenant can't insure the LL's property even if you wanted to. So it has to be his insurance policy which pays out.
Even if you had been negligent (and as you say, this is by no means certain) it is still a matter for the LL's insurance. If you had left the chip pan on accidentally and burnt the house to the ground, he would certainly be asking his insurance company rather than you, to pay. The last thing he would want, would be for you to be judged negligent and liable for restoring the damage
On the other side of the coin, suppose a water pipe had burst in the attic during freezing weather and as well as damaging the house had ruined many of your possessions. You might feel that the LL should pay for your damaged items. You might feel that he had been negligent in not insulating the pipe sufficiently. However, the way it would work out would be that the LL's insurance would pay for damage to the LL's property and you would be left to pay for damage to your possessions - or you would claim on your insurance if you had taken out a policy. You would have no valid claim against the LL.
When accidents involving flood or fire happen, there is almost always an element of negligence involved. Someone could have done something more or better. However, providing there was no deliberate intent to cause the fire or flood, the insurance policy should cover the damage.
In your case, it is clearly for the LL's insurance to pay. True his premium will probably increase a little next year but that is something LL's occasionally have to take on.

[Malbert]

Thank you Johnjw. I have a house that I rent off and have it covered with landlords insurance including accidental damage.

I can appreciate how upset I would be if my tennents phoned me to say the house had been flooded. But I would also appreciate their offer to pay my excess and would make a claim off my insurance.

I've written a long letter to the landlord summarising everything so far and asking him again to look at the damage and make an insurance claim where I will pay the excess.

Will keep you posted.

[Malbert]

Just to add - I'm confused why he has not been in touch or made a claim through his insurance. My friend has made an interesting point:

She reckons he does not have adequate insurance to cover having tenants in the house (it's a new build property that he built himself - he's renting off until the housing market improves). She thinks he may not have told his mortgage company or building insurance there there are tenants in the property.

If he hasn't got adequate insurance who will have to pay.

Additionally I have no record of what he has done with my £750 deposit - I can only assume he has pocketed it and after what's happened I imagine he will soon give me notice to quit and pocket the deposit. I have not evidence that it has been put into a government approved holding account.

Sorry for all the questions, but really appreciate your expert help

[johnjw]

You could be right about both the insurance and the deposit. If so, it is the LL who is in a weak position.
You say that he built the house himself. I assume that means that he did the work himself rather than arranged to have it done. As a skilled person he will have a clear idea about the extent of the damage and the cost of the work. He could probably do the necessary repair work relatively cheaply himself, although he would resent having to do this.
You really need to have a face-to-face talk. If he is waiting for the market to improve before selling, he may have to wait sometime. Changing tenants can be an expensive and uncertain business for the LL. The repairs will have to be done anyway. I think that if everything else about the tenancy is satisfactory and you are willing to contribute towards the leak repair, you should be able to sort something out.

[jeffrey]

I agree; and certainly confirm that the property's insurer has been notified (or else cover might be void).