Seeking Help for Liability about Flooding Accident in Units

LArpita on 04/01/2018 - 11:36
Last edited 09/01/2018 - 12:27 by 1 other user

Me and my husband are renting in a unit of 3 bedroom on first floor. We are living this building for more than 2 years. This is 2 storey building with 4 unit(2 on first floor and 2 on ground floor) . I wanted to mention there is a tap just next to our toilet commode, we joint a toilet hose with that tap as our toilet and bathroom is separate.

On 30 December early morning around 5:30 am we heard knock on our main door. My husband and me opened our door and we found our downstairs tenant and plumber was there. They told us water is leaking from our water tap and downstairs unit got 2/3 inch water on their floor (our floor is carpet one and their one is timber wood). They mentioned that they tried to wake up us. But it's hard to hear any knocking sound from our bedroom. Plumber came inside and we found that toilet hose pipe got a hole and water is coming from there. Then we turn off the tap.

Plumber asked us to pay $900 as he came this early morning on emergency call (downstairs tenant call them). We just woke and someone is asking to pay $900 which we don’t have any idea. My husband asked other tenant that we should call real estate company before we pay. Also we didn’t call the plumber plus no idea what happened on their unit we can't just pay to that plumber who didn’t do anything and just charging us $900.

Then other renters and us we shared that bill for that time (for holiday Real Estate was closed till 2nd Jan). Downstairs tenants mattress and some stuff like furniture got wet they mentioned. Then within 20-30 min again we heard knock on our door and we found 2 cops are here. They told us that tenants from downstair they call cops. Cops came and check our unit he saw that our carpet floor is also got water everywhere and we were trying to clean. Then they mentioned that there will be a case for damaging property/ goods. As we don’t own this unit how come water went to downstairs we don’t have any idea. Case will go through the real estate or owner. They checked and left.

One the same day we hired a professional Britex Vacuum to suck all water from our carpet and we did good carpet cleaning too. On 2nd Jan Real Estate agent came with owner and they told us that we have to pay other half of plumber bill to renters also their timber wood floor got damaged. We need to pay excess fee of insurance money($1300) for replacing/repair that units floor. Also we have to pay whatever downstairs people are asking for their damages.

I'm seeking for suggestion, are they charging us in right way? I know it was an accident, I do understand other unit peoples hassle but we didn’t do anything intentionally. And my question is that if anything happened to our unit that should be inside.

Why there is water draining between 2 flats floor/roof?
Why we have to pay plumber cost?
Also we didn’t know that we can’t use toilet hose with tap.

Poll Options

  • 3
    I would like to delete this post.
Home & Garden

Comments

    • CLoSeR on 04/01/2018 - 14:32
      +4

      The Op has also left the tap running on low..

  • myusername on 04/01/2018 - 14:57

    do you live in surfers per chance?

    had a friend who had to move out as there was a party on the floor above and the building plumbing system was filled with plastic bags and broken tiles.

    they woke the same day to find their whole unit flooded with fecal matter etc.

    real estate turfed them onto the street and declared the unit unfit for uninhabitable.

    • dcep on 04/01/2018 - 15:25

      lol … is this the one on the news ? schoolies are the next gen bikies

  • kiwijunglist on 04/01/2018 - 15:11
    +2

    In New Zealand if the tenant causes accidental damage to the property and the landlord has insurance, then the landlord must claim on the insurance, the landlord is responsible for paying the insurance excess and can not pass this cost onto the tenant.

    You situation is special in that you have caused damage to someone elses property not the landlord's property.

    You need to contact the governments tenancy advise services (or similar whatever it is called)

    Would recommend not paying anything further until you have advice from the government department that deals with tenants.

    Your English is not good, so allow me to explain:
    Insurance policy = This is the document that has all the rules about the insurance, eg. what it covers, what it doesn't cover, what the excess is.
    Insurance premium = The yearly fee that is paid to insurance company to have insurance
    Insurance claim = When damage happens you claim money (costs) from the insurance company
    Insurance excess = Usually the insurance company will not pay the first $XXX amount of a claim. It's usually somewhere between $100 to $1,500.

    eg. If the damage (claim) is $5000 and the excess is $500. The insurance company will pay $4,500 and the policy holder (landlord) pays $500.

    • dcep on 04/01/2018 - 15:28

      what is the property insurance that covers 3rd party damage, called? (similar to 3rd party property for cars)

      building only covers building
      contents only covers insurer's contents
      landlords only covers damages by tenants to their own unit ???

      • kiwijunglist on 04/01/2018 - 15:33

        landlords insurance covers all damage usually, not just damage from tenants.

        …

        Anyways you might be thinking of "renter's insurance". Basically it's a policy aimed at renters that covers the renter's (tentant's) contents (tenant's furniture, clothes, personal belongings etc) and also liability for any damages caused by the renter (tenant).

  • bobbified on 04/01/2018 - 16:28

    Does anyone know how the home/contents/liability insurance might work in the event that someone makes a claim against their own policy?

    Does the insurer then go and chase the responsible party for reimbursement (like they would for car insurance)?

    Curious because I've never had to deal with home/contents insurance claims.

  • DBBROS on 04/01/2018 - 21:22
    +2

    I thought you were not supposed to make any modifications without the approval from the real estate after they confirm it with the owner.

    • young_dazza on 05/01/2018 - 08:07
      +2

      In my opinion it’s no different to attaching a garden hose to a tap in the backyard. That’s not a modification.

  • DBBROS on 04/01/2018 - 21:41

    As with the water leak, it could be a simple but slow but can cause a significant mess if not monitored. I had a similar issue when I was living in a brick house once. The room adjacent to the bathroom was flooding every day and it was clueless as to where the water was coming from. And when the plumber came in to have a look at it, he assumed that the water could be leaking through the pipes and would require a major repair. After looking inside the bathroom, he found out that the water was coming from the hose attached to the washing machine. It wasn't tightened properly and was dripping water in small amounts. All it required was a small wrench.

  • garetz on 05/01/2018 - 01:23
    -7

    it is hard to understand what you are trying to say, but if you are renting, then you arent responsible for any costs, the owner is. You shouldn't have paid anything to anyone. The people involved should contact the owner, and ask him to pay for costs.

    • young_dazza on 05/01/2018 - 08:18

      Generally with insurance the owner of the policy pays an excess if the policy holder was at fault or if the party at fault does not admit liability.
      If the OP was at fault then no excess should be paid and the insurance company should try to recover all costs from OP.
      If OP was not at fault then the insurance company should not chase him/her for the costs and neither should they pay the excess.
      So it’s weird that OP would be asked to pay an excess but nothing more. Is the property owner lying to his insurance company about what actually happened?

      • garetz on 05/01/2018 - 12:09

        Thats the whole point, thats why i said the op shouldnt pay a cent, fault is very hard to prove, and in this case its very ambiguous.

        • WatchNerd on 05/01/2018 - 12:20
          +1

          I'm pretty sure the owner would know if they had installed a dodgy do it yourself bum gun using hose fittings, before the tenant moved in.

        • PJC on 05/01/2018 - 14:17
          +1

          … real estate agent told us we should not use toilet hose.
          And somehow hose pipe got a hole and water came out.

          That's not very ambiguous.

  • djmm on 05/01/2018 - 09:23
    +2

    While we are on the topic,quick question:

    For your DYI bidet bum sprayer with garden hose and watering gun, do you set it to jet stream or mist or…?

    • Iwantthatbargain on 05/01/2018 - 12:02
      +1

      depending on how sensitive you are :)

      • WatchNerd on 05/01/2018 - 12:33
        +1

        It's not a beauty treatment, the aim is to remove any traces of fecal matter from around your anal sphincter. Jet is the only option.

    • payton on 05/01/2018 - 13:35

      River stream rather than 'Niagara Falls'

  • srhardy on 05/01/2018 - 10:30
    +4

    Speak to the rental tennants authority and pay nothing asside from your rent (everyone wants money, pay no one unless directed to by a court)

    Your not liable for insurance, excess, neighbours ect but they can all ask for money. As a tennant you can loose your bond but you can ask for this to be reviewed by a 3rd party so dont accept its automatic loss.

    If you ask a lawyer, the bill will be as much of not more than they are all asking… Check with rental authority in your state and post back their advice.

    Same thing happened to my Bro. Left a tap on and flooded a rental house. He paid $0 but they all asked!!!

    BUT, IF YOU MODDED THE TOILET WATER SYSTEM WITH A BUM GUN FROM HOW YOU RENTED THE PROPERTY THEN YOU MAY BE ON THE HOOCK FOR ALL DAMAGES AND EXCESS'S

    • bleckyL on 05/01/2018 - 14:15

      It sounds like they just attached it to a normal tap, so no mods to the plumbing.

  • DiscoJango on 05/01/2018 - 10:35
    -2

    the perils of renting in an apartment building: who's to blame and pay?! the renter, the owner, strata, insurance

    OP: i recomend you putting yourself on the other apartments shoes. how would you feel if the upstairs apartment was 100% responsible for your place flooding, damaging your goods. even if they didnt mean it, they are still the ones whose actions directly resulted in your goods being damaged.

    in this instance, looks like you will have to be a good citizen and cop it on the chin, you stuffed up, time to pay.

  • p3nf0ld on 05/01/2018 - 11:40
    +1

    Sounds like your getting out of it cheap, there would be huge expenses relating to the clean up. I'm not sure the landlord's insurance will hold up if they notice the source of the leak. Those bidet setups are imported from overseas and in my experience the cheap ones do not meet any Australian standards.
    - damage to your unit
    - damage to below unit
    - damage to person below's belongings.
    - Clean up costs.

    Realistically you are talking several tens of thousands in damages if everything is done properly - fans brought it, pulling out plaster and ensuring timber has dried out enough, replastering, etc. Otherwise there will be mould growing in six months time.

  • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 11:58
    +8

    Act of God.
    1. Landlord responsible for all liability emanating from property. Hence he has landlord insurance incl public liability and possibly covers tenants contents.
    2. RE Agent provided “suitable” low risk tenant and has business insurance.
    3. Strata has insurance coverage for common areas.
    4. Tap is provided for tenant use by owner.
    5. Hose was connected correctly with aus ISO standard fittings.
    6. Tenant wisely set tap to low flow to reduce risk. (Turning off would have been prudent but not necessary).
    7. Faulty product failure (hose or fittings) led to the damage.
    8. Tenant unwisely choose to have no insurance.
    9. Victim wisely chose to have insurance.
    10. Multiple insurances cover the event.
    11. Multiple insurance companies will split the costs.
    12. Insurance companies are in the game of risk (and having no claims) and lost this one.
    13. Insurance companies will try to recover loss from whoever but are not entitled to. It is not mandatory to pay them. They may hound you mercilessly.
    14. Tenant has done no wrong and offered to assist victim in an act of community spirit and neighbourhood harmony.
    15. Tenant could pay half or all of victims excess but not mandatory as victim chose to utilise his insurance.
    16. Tenant has remedied his home to his standard by wet vac at his expense.
    17. Landlord may want restoration to his standard but not to new.
    18. Cost for replacement 2nd hand carpet and laying covered by landlord insurance and depreciated (recouped) against tax.
    19. If event occurred previously or again it could be seen as recklessness.
    20. Obtaining insurance would be advantageous in case upstairs (next door) neighbor also has a future flood event.

    • braussie on 05/01/2018 - 12:21

      OMG, can I hire you?

      • Scab on 05/01/2018 - 14:04

        Can't you get a boyfriend?

      • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 16:23

        Why, what have you deemed to have done wrong in your eyes ? Please tell.

        • Antikythera on 05/01/2018 - 20:23

          what have you deemed to have done wrong in your eyes ?

          seems like a trick question. is the correct answer "nothing" ?

        • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 22:35

          @antikythera: No reply from braussie suggests “something” - allegedly.

    • bleckyL on 05/01/2018 - 14:17

      Arpita read this, then delete all your posts and talk to legal council before you talk to anyone else.

    • p3nf0ld on 05/01/2018 - 17:32
      +3

      5.Hose was connected correctly with aus ISO standard fittings.

      I'm not sure this was the case.

  • djmm on 05/01/2018 - 12:13
    +8

    It is not act of God if Tennant installed ghetto diy bidet and run the water 24/7 because it is free and then it accidentally leaked and caused damage.

    • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 16:12
      +2

      Accident/Act of God = same.
      No deliberate malicious careless premeditated act here by the tenant.

      djmm, guessing you have installed a washing machine to taps. They leak/burst too sometimes.
      Likewise, tenant chooses to install apparatus for personal hygiene reasons, which they are quite entitled to do so.

  • dogboy on 05/01/2018 - 13:00

    As I understand it, the owner will claim insurance and the renters are to pay the excess. What is to stop owners from jacking up the excess to the max amount to reduce their premiums? Do the renters have to wear the excess amount regardless of how much it is? Might be a good time to review my landlords insurance…

    • bleckyL on 05/01/2018 - 14:14

      Because you might not be able to actually get that excess out of the tenants in the long run and you would have to foot the bill for the excess.

    • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 17:14
      -2

      Where does it state in your landlords insurance contract that your tenant must pay the excess - whatever your chosen level ?
      If you initiate the claim then your contract requires you to pay the excess. You may even have higher premiums in the future or even be declined. How would you levy these factors against even a long term tenant ?

      In a simple business model, your income (rent from your tenant) would cover all your outgoings (expenses including insurance premiums) and you would have a contingency fund for unexpected expenses (ie insurance excesses, emergency maintenance, rate rises)
      Fortunately the ATO subsidises a percent (your income tax rate) of the costs in return for you providing housing (and the govt less so) to your tenant.
      Your reward is the 100% capital growth of the property to buy more property.
      The 100% profit is yours (less CGT if sold - and even then CGT is discounted 50% - lucky you), yet you want to slug the tenant for your excess.

      You want your cake and eat it too.

      Now you could place your "contingency funds" in an offset account against your IP mortgage instead, to reduce costs if you're concerned. However if they are in an offset account against your "PPOR" you could be liable for CGT should you sell your "PPOR".

      Before you review your Landlords Insurance - perhaps you could ask your tenant to provide their Certificate of Insurance, and if they can't would you evict them in case they cause an event but have no insurance ?
      Probably not as it may be discriminatory. Just like you have the choice to hold Landlords Insurance or not.

      Hopefully the OP's landlord has insurance, make his claim and move on. It's just a cost of business (for lucrative rewards that the tenant currently has no chance of).

      Thank your lucky stars.

  • Arpita on 05/01/2018 - 15:10
    -7

    I would like to delete this post. Coudnt find any option.

    • steff on 05/01/2018 - 15:31

      lol what did you expect people here to do?

      Give you suggestions to avoid paying for a mistake you made in the first place?

    • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 16:16

      Send a message to the moderator. Click "report" at the top of the page under your post.
      Good luck with the outcome.

    • Iwantthatbargain on 05/01/2018 - 17:40
      +1

      Why do you want to delete? Is your neighbour also on OZB forum ?

  • Ken1977 on 05/01/2018 - 16:01
    +3

    I would really like to see the plumbing connection you hooked the bum gun too. No bathroom I have seen has an extra free point just in case tenant has a bum gun. If it’s something you have added without written consent, you are liable, andlord is not obligated to use his insurance, he can move to get you evicted and take you to VCAT to recover costs above the bond.

    • Brouw3r on 05/01/2018 - 16:49

      I think it's one of these, normal toilet fitting on one side and bidet hose on the other.

      • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 17:35

        Done something similar. Dishwasher on one side, ice making fridge on the other.
        What's the problem ? (I used the brass garden version with flow reducing valve levers for each side).
        like this

        • Brouw3r on 05/01/2018 - 17:43

          I don'think there is a problem, AFAIK you can legally attach those yourself. OP has done more than I would have which would have been to help clean up but everything else should be covered by insurance and (I assume) it's the landlords insurance company to figure out who that is. They can ask for money but unless it was ordered by my insurance company (within reason) or a court, I wouldn't be paying a cent.

        • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 17:55

          @Brouw3r: Agreed.
          Perhaps the tenant can ask for reduced rent until the carpet is replaced.
          I wouldn't pay the excess - which admits liability.
          Then 10 years down the track the building collapses due to a previous leak amongst other events.

        • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 18:23
          -1

          @Arpita: suitable for residential use as illustrated. Personally I'd've gone commercial grade.

        • p3nf0ld on 05/01/2018 - 19:12
          +5

          Suitable for use in a laundry tub as illustrated.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2018 - 21:17

          @Arpita: We have this for the kids hair in the bath. My wife used to leave the tap on. I would notice it leaking and turn the tap of. It’s definitely not suitable to be under constant pressure.

    • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 18:06
      -1

      What TF ? Evicted because he sprung a leak. You're callous.

      • Ken1977 on 06/01/2018 - 10:24
        +1

        Entirely possible, I would get rid of that tenant if they did that to my property, if they are that negligent to flood own apartment and below apartment, what's next. Landlord has no obligation to claim on insurance, and If Landlord makes claim on insurance will OP pay the landlords increased insurance premium for the next 10 years. What unseen damage have they caused that will continue to haunt landlord after insurance has paid out. Legally tenant has obligation to fix at their own cost first, then if that's not done they loose their bond, anything above the bond can be reclaimed at VCAT. That's why tenants need insurance too.

  • drfuzzy on 05/01/2018 - 21:41

    TLDR
    You made a mistake and flooded your neighbour's apartment
    It is your responsibility to pay for the damage and repairs to both apartments

  • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2018 - 21:42
    +1

    Sorry but I'd say you are at fault. Lucky owner has insurance and is willing to let you off with excess.

  • WaterMark on 05/01/2018 - 22:16

    So I have a seperate shower and toilet room like you. The shower room will always have full waterproofing (required by building code). This waterproofing is on the floor and up the walls. Think of it as a bowl. The toilet f stand-alone on the other hand does not require 100% waterproofing as it is not technically a wet area (compared to a shower/bath). This results to builders cutting corners and only waterproofing the floor only. This would represent a plate. So when you have water in a bowl, then it would hold the water. If on the other hand you put water on a plate, it can’t hold much in water and it just seeps out the edges and down below the floor. I found this out when removing dry wall from my shower room and toilet room right adjacent to each other. The dry wall of the toilet under the tiles was wet whilst the shower was dry. A toilet room is not designed for long periods of water on the floor or walls. The showers are.

    TLDR: shower room have full waterproofing; toilet room have half waterproofing (floor only). Builders may cut corners if you do not see them apply it.

  • ShannonN on 05/01/2018 - 22:29

    While this doesn't really answer the ops specific questions. Here's my similar story.

    10 yrs ago I lived in a 2 story unit block with 2 units on each floor I lived on top story, one day while I had a load of washing in the machine in laundry which was also in the bathroom shower area.

    The washing machine failed to shut of the fill cycle after washing (refill for rinse cycle) this overflowed and flooded my bathroom floor (I was cooking food and never noticed till I went to check on status of washing.)

    Water leaked through my bathroom floor into downstairs unit flooding it pretty bad enough water escaped to flood my garage which was under neath downstairs neighbours unit.

    Neighbour was very upset and demanded I help clean up, etc etc
    I said very sorry but lets talk to real estate agents and the respective Body corporate contacts insurances etc first

    Upshot was the bathroom was found to not be waterproofed , the drain in bathroom floor had no piping to external drain just a drain hole above the mdf flooring that was used above the concrete roof/floor separating the units.

    My real estate went for the Body corporate as did my neighbours different r/e the BC and landlords insurance paid for it all eventually, only out of pocket was the downstairs bloke who had to have big blower fan dryers going three days straight to dry carpets rooms etc he had to pat the electricity extra for that tried to rope me in for 1/2

    but I said its on the owner insurance Never heard any more on that, but the unit opposite about a month later burst their water heater and flooded the unit beneath them with pretty much the same results !

    I moved within six mths

    To OP really check if you legally are considered at sole fault, check with BC and owners insurance etc you should pay nothing till all legal avenues are exhausted and you are issued with a court order I believe its just an accident

  • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2018 - 22:29

    So it sounds like you connected your OWN hose to the tap, a tap which the real estate told you not to use? And you left the tap on expecting the hose nozzle to hold up? Sounds like it's your fault. Pay the $1300 excess and apologise, the insurance claim should cover the plumber costs as well.

    • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 23:12
      -1

      Yes it sounds like that. That’s the perception. But the hose failed for what it was intended for. Therefore an accident. Happens all the time.
      Send the damage bill to Bunnings for selling inferior goods. Hardly possible so insurance covers it. Landlord initiates claim which requires $1300 to proceed.
      Landlord holds insurance to protect his investment. Otherwise does landlord pay tenant $1300 if there is no damage or claims during year ?
      Why would tenant pay the excess ? It’s not his policy.
      If the tenant does pay the excess, can he then add his loss to the claim ? A replacement hose perhaps? Paying the excess implies fault.

      Short story is landlord is running a business which includes risks and expenses.
      Tenant is merely residing and sometimes sh1t happens.

      And it’s not written in the lease NOT to use the tap in this way. Only verbal advice at best which tenant ignored. Lease needs amendment agreed to by both parties.

      Plumber can get fckd at $900 per hour. I’d take his invoice to the Plumbers and Gasfitters Association and have him expelled and seek recompense through Fair Trading for the return of tenants $450.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2018 - 23:32
        +1

        The hose fittings/nozzles are not guaranteed to hold up, did they make that claim? did the hose come with an insurance policy like some surge protectors do? It's particularly common for them to fail if you leave the tap open and the hose is under pressure - totally foreseeable, as it's not an intended use of the hose.

        The offer to pay the Landlord's excess is very generous. He is not obligated to, OP is welcome to pay all the damages out of pocket instead and fight the Plumber on the bogus charge themselves, but it's probably going to be more than $1300, otherwise the Landlord, Plumber and Downstairs neighbour are likely to take legal action against OP for the cost of the damages and the Landlord will also evict them.

        I see what you are trying to do, and it's a noble effort, but realistically it is not worth it for the OP to fight it when they don't really have a leg to stand on here. These are the sort of arguments you take when you are trying to get out of Multimillion dollar liabilities, not $1300.

        • MITM on 06/01/2018 - 00:20
          +2

          $1300 + $900 may seem small change to some including the landlord with 100% capital growth and subsidies in his pocket for his efforts.
          $2200 to the tenant may seem like unaffordable millions. All for making homely comfortable adjustments. Perhaps the RE should have improved the WC taking into account the tenants ethnic background instead of “not here mate”.

          Also the $900 plumbers investigation confirmed hose failure, not connector or nozzle fittings. The hose split. So to do washing machines, water chill fridges etc and by accident.

          Tenant should stand his ground. Landlord has this event covered.
          It’s all perception. Tenant did nothing intentional except go to Bunnings for a solution. Landlord anticipates events therefore buys insurance which comes with excess. A higher premium would reduce the excess if desired.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2018 - 00:40

          @MITM: why would he pay the $900? Just claim the insurance and they will handle dealing with the Plumber

        • MITM on 07/01/2018 - 11:04

          @The Land of Smeg: the plumbers bill was initiated by victim downstairs and is obliged to pay in full. However OP states he contributed half and RE instructed he pay victims half too. That’s BS.
          Victim could try to claim $900 from his insurance but unlikely.
          Victim more likely recompensed by his RE under emergency repairs (up to set limit of lease) as RE office was closed. Presumably he used his RE listed plumber in which case his RE should have been invoiced. RE would have reduced bill to a normal level or delisted.
          Likewise Op’s landlord should try to claim $900 from his insurance but unlikely.
          Plumber did no more than the victim could have done for himself to trace the leak so it was a non essential expense.
          Victim couldn’t wake OP but plumber/cops could.(?)
          OP has no insurance to claim on.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 12:02

          @MITM: didn't realise it was already paid. Dumb. But OP should still take up LL on offer to pay LLs excess and submit receipt for reimbursement anyway.

  • nwa on 05/01/2018 - 22:51

    easy case you don't need to pay anything, shouldn't have even paid the plumber, if it goes to court you should win.

    • MITM on 05/01/2018 - 23:15

      Agreed.

    • benbarren on 06/01/2018 - 18:29

      agreed. u have paid more than enough. esp as bond is likely gone and u need to find a new place.

      • payton on 06/01/2018 - 19:49

        esp as bond is likely gone and u need to find a new place.

        with their name on the rental blacklist?

        • MITM on 07/01/2018 - 11:31

          The blacklist would be chockers if every accidental event and non insured tenant was black listed.
          Landlord should now provide a bidet attachment to prevent reoccurrence so the tenant can continue to enjoy his home.
          tenant should request one prior to moving into any new place. We’re an evolving society.

      • MITM on 07/01/2018 - 11:24

        Bond in only available to landlord after vacating the premises. By then the accidental damage would have been rectified to original state.
        An accident is not reasonable grounds to evict.
        Tenant has been there 2 years already and thus a quality tenant otherwise he would not have received an invitation to renew lease after 1st anniversary.
        Eviction may be deemed as retribution and moving costs etc awarded to tenant.
        Besides, a new tenant may be worse.

  • Gravy on 06/01/2018 - 08:04
    +2

    I don't see how a toilet hose is any different to any other hoses that are always open in a house, such as dishwasher/fridge/washing machine. It's prudent to turn them off after each use but how many people do? Talk to the body corp or strata manager.

    As to agent telling them not to use a particular tap, that's a bit like telling them not to use a light switch as sometimes it shocks people.

    However, I have just turned our toilet hose off at the wall and mentioned to my better half that it now needs to be turned off after each use. Thanks for that.

  • djmm on 06/01/2018 - 08:16
    +1

    OP can kiss the bond goodbye

  • thriftybunny on 06/01/2018 - 12:10

    I'm a bit late and reading from previous posts everything's pretty much covered, but I just want to clarify - there's no requirement for water proofing between different levels of any building because it's not designed to hold water (i.e. not a swimming pool); and the responsibility of who pays for the excess usually depends on professional opinion of whose fault it was, in this case the professional would be the plumber, if the plumber deemed it not the tenant's fault (i.e. normal wear and tear or unclear what caused it) then the landlord would cover the excess, but if the plumber deems the water leak tenant's fault then it would be the tenant.

  • gooddealmate on 06/01/2018 - 13:10
    +3

    I think you mentioned that there was a floor waste installed in the toilet room. If that is the case, then this should be designed so that any water flows down the waste and therefore prevents any flooding elsewhere. If water was leaking outside of the room then that means the tiles have been laid without sufficient falls to the waste to allow the correct drainage.

    That is an owner/strata issue dependent on when the tiles were laid ie; original or relaid.

    Source: Tiler

  • Aust on 06/01/2018 - 17:14
    +1

    Be very careful about paying the excess. If you have negligently altered the plumbing , perhaps illegally then the insurance company may also come after the cost of repairs also.
    If you have contents insurance then lodge a claim with your insurer and your liability section of the policy might cover it.

  • cath999 on 06/01/2018 - 18:53

    Should just wipe your bum instead

  • cnmarine on 06/01/2018 - 20:32
    +2

    Why did you use a garden hose connector…….especially one so cheap………they always leak.

  • tonsta on 06/01/2018 - 20:41

    Nothing to do for now, not your building, owners responsibility to sort this mess out…. also nothing to do with cops, they are just for window dressing. Civil matter. Owners need to sort out through negotiation or courts.

  • john_conner on 07/01/2018 - 14:20
    +1

    Landlords are responsible for repairs due to fair wear and tear.
    Tenants are responsible for damages caused by negligence or intentional acts.

    This unfortunately is negligence as the hose spray is clearly not intended to be left under constant pressure. It is designed to be attached to a plumbing fixture the same way a garden hose is. The tap it is attached to should be turned off when not in use (the same way you would turn off a garden trigger head at the tap when not in use). The product in question doesn’t bear the watermark (according to the Bunnings website) so hasn’t been certified as being fit for purpose by the industry body.

    OP is fortunate to have such a reasonable landlord that is willing to claim this under their insurance policy. Landlords aren’t required to have this insurance nor claim it on behalf of tenant damage.

    Yes, landlords run a business but ultimately the tenant has responsibilities for certain damage as well.

    If I were OP I would:
    1. Pay the excess
    2. Hope the insurance company doesn’t come after you for damages. If so, ask the landlord for the excess back.

    Not paying risks the landlord seeking legal advice, likely result would be seeking full damages from OP which is guaranteed to be more than the insurance excess. Refusal to pay would go to arbitration and it all goes down hill from there…

  • tazzmatic on 07/01/2018 - 14:50
    +1

    Shouldn’t the “bum gun “ have been fitted with proper splitter and valves ?? Why was a “garden hose “ used ?? If this is as Indians refer a “jugad” the OP should be held responsible !! The plumbing laws and certifications exist for a reason!

    • ladybug1 on 07/01/2018 - 16:03

      It was not a garden hose, it was the kind of splitter used for garden hoses!It isn't illegal.

      • p3nf0ld on 07/01/2018 - 16:40
        +1

        As John Conner said "This unfortunately is negligence as the hose spray is clearly not intended to be left under constant pressure. It is designed to be attached to a plumbing fixture the same way a garden hose is. The tap it is attached to should be turned off when not in use (the same way you would turn off a garden trigger head at the tap when not in use). The product in question doesn’t bear the watermark (according to the Bunnings website) so hasn’t been certified as being fit for purpose by the industry body."

        So yes may not be considered an accident. The picture from the product clearly shows it only being used in a laundry tub.

  • ladybug1 on 07/01/2018 - 16:06

    OP, contact the tenants union on Monday. They should be able to point you in the right direction. I think it could go either way in a tribunal, but you would want to try at least. Getting the bidet spray attached wasn't illegal or against the rules-it was an accident.

  • Ken1977 on 07/01/2018 - 16:50

    Real estate is never closed, they always have a 24 hour emergency number so this doesn't sound right. $900 cost is entirely OP's responsibility, as they state below tenant knocked on door several times early in morning and they didn't hear. Is below tenant suppose to sit and wait. Person at fault should pay cost. OP, is responsible for all damage costs as they hooked up the makeshift connection. If it was landlords toilet hose that split it would be landlords fault, there's no doubt here. Landlord doesn't have to and should not claim on insurance but may do, only to ensure work is performed properly and swiftly.
    Bathroom does not require drain or waterproofing or anything. It would have been compliant at the time it was built. When was that?, place could be 20 years old. Never heard of waterproofing under toilet anyway, only required in shower.

    • nwa on 07/01/2018 - 18:00

      Disagree, I have house from 1960's that has floor waste in bathrooms, for kitchen its not required, but bathroom is different case. OP is renter, if there is liability it resets with owner.

  • JmanNick on 07/01/2018 - 18:57
    +2

    Two big issues for me are that you used garden hose connectors indoors, plus you ran a hose out of the bathroom into a non wet area (hallway or room) and into the toilet. Recipe for disaster.

    Garden hoses and connectors, especially cheap ones, fail all the time. Zero chance I’d use that indoors (with the exception of over the sink as shown in the Bunnings link you provided)

    I also assume that the hose you listed (1.5m) isn’t long enough to reach from the bathroom tap to the toilet, in which case you would have needed some extra garden hose or similar with what I assume was connected with more garden hose connectors as you listed?

    I have no idea what you legally are required to do, but you were negligent and 100% at fault IMO.

  • brickwall on 07/01/2018 - 21:15

    Don't have any comment on this issue but just want to share this image as to how the toilet and the spray/hose setting normally looks like.

    https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-modern-toilet-room-fl…

    From what I can tell it seems like the OP has toilet and bathroom separated, so instead of having the water source set up like the one in the photo she connected the hose to the tap in the bathroom. So the hose gone through bathroom door, through the carpet all the way to the toilet?

  • freemoneyhunter on 08/01/2018 - 06:26

    Sounds weird, you were asleep while your bathroom toilet was flooding yours and everyone elses apartment, they knocked a lot and you wouldn't wake up.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join