Washing machine floods apartment!

Pharrell

Just wondering where we stand on this,

Moved into an apartment 3 weeks ago and it’s been an endless list of mishaps.

Firstly when we moved in the place wasn’t cleaned and we had to clean the whole apartment ourselves, we didn’t have a kettle, toaster or Hoover and the oven didn’t work. (in the lease it was stated that we would have all this items and in working order and the apartment was cleaned professionally), we got the kettle, toaster and Hoover about a week later and the oven was replace 2 weeks later.

Then this happens, Saturday night we decided to put on a wash and went away to bed about an hour into the wash, woke up Sunday morning and the carpet was soaking wet, went out to the hall and it all water and into the kitchen, the place was flooded!!! The washing machine still going and the door wide open, water flying out of it. I’m not an expert on washing machine but I do know if the door is open it won’t work. We got onto the Estate Agency and eventually got someone down to look at. This mad man arrives barges in the door, smoking a cigar and asked what the issue was (like come on the place is a like a swimming pool). Told him what happen and started going on about we put too much clothes in the washing machine, we’re like no we didn’t, then started going on about the that’s what the “colored people” do and I pointed out that we were both Caucasian, so he says he would call back in an hour and off he went at 11.45 and left us there for the day waiting. He also told us to take €50 off the rent for this month so he admitted liability.

So here is the damage, 1 laptop destroyed, hairdryer, hair straightener, phone chargers and books. Got onto the Estate agency this morning told us we weren’t cover for personal damages but I think we should be compensated as the equipment that they supplied was faulty and not our fault. Do you think we should be compensated for this?

kmick

You probably should get compensation but the likelyhood is you wont. Tenants are supposed to have contents insurance; landlords are supposed to have public liability insurance.

Paulw

Pharrell wrote: »

So here is the damage, 1 laptop destroyed, hairdryer, hair straightener, phone chargers and books. Got onto the Estate agency this morning told us we weren’t cover for personal damages but I think we should be compensated as the equipment that they supplied was faulty and not our fault. Do you think we should be compensated for this?

No. You should have your own contents insurance, which would cover your stuff. The landlord/EA has no liability at all in relation to your personal items.

They do, of course, have to resolve the issue with the machine and also the other damage to the apartment.

Paulw

kmick wrote: »

You probably should get compensation but the likelyhood is you wont. Tenants are supposed to have contents insurance; landlords are supposed to have public liability insurance.

Landlords don't need public liability insurance. Even if they did, public liability insurance wouldn't cover your personal items.

Pharrell

Thanks for the replies, I understand you Paul but still for a washing to open mid wash and keep running isn’t right, we're lucky we're a ground floor apartment as it would have caused a lot of damage if we were in a 2nd or 3rd floor apartment.

The chap for the EA accepted when he offered €50 off the rent and also the builder knew it was a dodge washing machine because when he came into the apartment yesterday, he's exact words were

"they never replaced the f**king washing machine"

Is it not in the EA best interested to have a fully working appliance in there from day 1 if they knew it was faulty? this is why I think we should be compensated.

Paulw

Pharrell wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, I understand you Paul but still for a washing to open mid wash and keep running isn’t right, we're lucky we're a ground floor apartment as it would have caused a lot of damage if we were in a 2nd or 3rd floor apartment.

Is it not in the EA best interested to have a fully working appliance in there from day 1 if they knew it was faulty? this is why I think we should be compensated.

None of the above removes your own need for contents insurance, to protect your items.

If you flooded another unit, then the building insurance (block insurance) would cover any structural costs, however, the residents of those units would also need to claim their own contents insurance for any damaged items.

Yes, of course the EA should make sure all appliances are working correctly and not faulty.

But, unfortunately for you, you have no grounds at all for compensation.

kmick

Paulw wrote: »

Landlords don't need public liability insurance. Even if they did, public liability insurance wouldn't cover your personal items.

Its not mandatory but I know of an incident where a drunken tenant jumped off a roof and sued the landlord. They thre it out of court as he had been seen drinking all day but another court, another day, less witnesses, he would have been ringing his insurance company.

Paulw

kmick wrote: »

Its not mandatory but I know of an incident where a drunken tenant jumped off a roof and sued the landlord. They thre it out of court as he had been seen drinking all day but another court, another day, less witnesses, he would have been ringing his insurance company.

Sorry, WHAT???? What has that got to do with contents insurance?

I don't even know how public liability would come in to what a tenant does in your example above.

kmick

Paul we have our wires crossed. I said tenants should have contents insurance. The only thing a landlord was likely to have is public liability insurance for if a tenants injures themselves on their property.

Paulw

kmick wrote: »

Paul we have our wires crossed. I said tenants should have contents insurance. The only thing a landlord was likely to have is public liability insurance for if a tenants injures themselves on their property.

Public Liability would have no impact there, since the property is not "public". It is private residence, even when occupied by a tenant. Public Liability insurance would not cover a tenant injuring themselves inside the property (that I am aware of).

kmick

Paulw wrote: »

Public Liability would have no impact there, since the property is not "public". It is private residence, even when occupied by a tenant. Public Liability insurance would not cover a tenant injuring themselves inside the property (that I am aware of).

I know two landlords both of whom have public liability cover on rented apts so wind the neck in a bit.

Victor

Paulw wrote: »

the residents of those units would also need to claim their own contents insurance for any damaged items.

I disagree. If Joe Bloggs and his washing machines upstairs destroy my lap-top, I'll be looking for money off Joe Bloggs.

Now, it might be a good idea for me to have contents insurance and Joe Bloggs's contents insurance won't cover me, but I'll still be looking for money off Joe Bloggs (and possibly his public liability insurance).

seamus

My gut feeling says that you would need to prove that someone was at fault or that there was otherwise negligence on somebody's part.

A washing machine failing doesn't consitute negligence unless it was fitted incorrectly or the landlord was otherwise aware of the fault.

I can't remember it exactly, but there's a legal concept which effectively says that a person cannot be liable for an event which they did not contribute to and which they were unaware of.

For example, if a road has a pothole or is otherwise damaged due to wear and tear, and you damage your car, the council is only negligent if they were aware of the pothole and failed to fix it, or if the pothole occured because the road was inadequately repaired/laid previously. However, if it's simply a case of the road being 25 years old, the council is not at fault.

This case seems similar - the washing machine simply failed due to being old, therefore the landlord is not at fault, because he didn't actually do anything wrong.

If someone could remember the term for this legal concept, that would be useful.

Victor, if the foundations on one side of my house collapsed, causing a wall on one side to collapse and damage my neighbour's house, I wouldn't be liable for the damage to their house.

Paulw

Victor wrote: »

I disagree. If Joe Bloggs and his washing machines upstairs destroy my lap-top, I'll be looking for money off Joe Bloggs.

Now, it might be a good idea for me to have contents insurance and Joe Bloggs's contents insurance won't cover me, but I'll still be looking for money off Joe Bloggs (and possibly his public liability insurance).

While you may look for money, he isn't legally liable, so wouldn't have to give you anything. That's why you need your own contents insurance.

ztoical

public liability insurance is for places like shopping centers, pubs, clubs, theaters, sporting venues, markets, and hotels not private apartments or houses. Landlords would have buidling insurance to cover damage to the structure of the building, tenants should have contents insurance to cover their own personal belongings.

Dabko

hi

I dont have any experience in insurance background but i did have the same issue a few years ago with an apartment in Galway. Wash Machine backed up, flooded and destroyed TV (was on the floor at time!), ipod and my favourite packet of tissues!

Anyways, tried to push the point that the landlords were responsible for the damage and get them to pay of their insurance, only to be told by a solicitor that it was "very unlikely id get anything except a bill from him!"
I was advised that taking out tenants content insurance is the only way to go as it will cove things like this. I had the insurance bought 2 days later and had it for 3 more places i lived in. And guess what - nothing happened!

Best of luck with it OP, bit of a balls to be honest.

seamus

OK, I found it. The specific term under tort law is "nonfeasance".

There are two other related words:
Misfeasance - Doing something poorly (i.e. accidentally not taking the correct action)
Malfeasance - Doing something wrongly (i.e. deliberately not taking the correct action)

By contrast, "Nonfeasance" basically means, "Not taking any action".

In essence, somebody cannot be accused of doing something wrong, if they were unaware that any action was required. Inaction can only be wrong if the person accused of it is aware that action is required. That is, if you know that something needs to be done but you don't do it, you are guilty of malfeasance (because you took the wrong course of action). On the other hand, if you have done nothing then you are "guilty" of nonfeasance.

In Irish law, nonfeasance isn't actionable. Therefore the landlord in this case is not liable because he was not aware that action was required therefore he did not do anything to cause the damage.

However, that said, the concept of nonfeasance usually only crops up in the case of road maintainance cases as I outlined above. It would be worth the OP going to a free legal advice centre and seeing what they say.

Del2005

seamus wrote: »

My gut feeling says that you would need to prove that someone was at fault or that there was otherwise negligence on somebody's part.

A washing machine failing doesn't consitute negligence unless it was fitted incorrectly or the landlord was otherwise aware of the fault.

I can't remember it exactly, but there's a legal concept which effectively says that a person cannot be liable for an event which they did not contribute to and which they were unaware of.

For example, if a road has a pothole or is otherwise damaged due to wear and tear, and you damage your car, the council is only negligent if they were aware of the pothole and failed to fix it, or if the pothole occured because the road was inadequately repaired/laid previously. However, if it's simply a case of the road being 25 years old, the council is not at fault.

This case seems similar - the washing machine simply failed due to being old, therefore the landlord is not at fault, because he didn't actually do anything wrong.

If someone could remember the term for this legal concept, that would be useful.

Victor, if the foundations on one side of my house collapsed, causing a wall on one side to collapse and damage my neighbour's house, I wouldn't be liable for the damage to their house.

seamus wrote: »

OK, I found it. The specific term under tort law is "nonfeasance".

There are two other related words:
Misfeasance - Doing something poorly (i.e. accidentally not taking the correct action)
Malfeasance - Doing something wrongly (i.e. deliberately not taking the correct action)

By contrast, "Nonfeasance" basically means, "Not taking any action".

In essence, somebody cannot be accused of doing something wrong, if they were unaware that any action was required. Inaction can only be wrong if the person accused of it is aware that action is required. That is, if you know that something needs to be done but you don't do it, you are guilty of malfeasance (because you took the wrong course of action). On the other hand, if you have done nothing then you are "guilty" of nonfeasance.

In Irish law, nonfeasance isn't actionable. Therefore the landlord in this case is not liable because he was not aware that action was required therefore he did not do anything to cause the damage.

However, that said, the concept of nonfeasance usually only crops up in the case of road maintainance cases as I outlined above. It would be worth the OP going to a free legal advice centre and seeing what they say.

Pharrell wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, I understand you Paul but still for a washing to open mid wash and keep running isn’t right, we're lucky we're a ground floor apartment as it would have caused a lot of damage if we were in a 2nd or 3rd floor apartment.

The chap for the EA accepted when he offered €50 off the rent and also the builder knew it was a dodge washing machine because when he came into the apartment yesterday, he's exact words were

"they never replaced the f**king washing machine"

Is it not in the EA best interested to have a fully working appliance in there from day 1 if they knew it was faulty? this is why I think we should be compensated.

Does the bit I've bolded above not imply that the landlord is guilty of nonfeasance? If a builder, that works for the EA or landlord, knows that the washing machine is faulty then the landlord should know and do something about it. Not going to get any money for the OP though.

seamus

Del2005 wrote: »

Does the bit I've bolded above not imply that the landlord is guilty of nonfeasance? If a builder, that works for the EA or landlord, knows that the washing machine is faulty then the landlord should know and do something about it. Not going to get any money for the OP though.

I assume you mean "misfeasance"

Yeah, I missed that post from the OP. Thorny issue - the builder's comments don't necessarily imply that the landlord or agent knew that the washing machine was broken. That the builder knew isn't all that relevant - the landlord or an agent of the landlord (i.e. the rental agent) would need to be aware of the issue for misfeasance to come into it.

Offering €50 off the rent doesn't imply anything either. It could easily be argued that it was simply a goodwill gesture and not an implicit acceptance of liability.

As I say, www.flac.ie is the way to go.

broker2008

I would bring it to the attention of the Estate Agent & the owner stating the loss. If the builder was aware of the specific problem and the owner knew..... However maybe the washing machine was overloaded, the owner will say. A serial landlord won't give you a cent though.

patbrady877

if the washing machine is owned by the landlord , and it caused damage to your goods - its the landlords prob. you could hire are claims assessor and they would handle everything for you -for a fee!

ztoical

patbrady877 wrote: »

if the washing machine is owned by the landlord , and it caused damage to your goods - its the landlords prob. you could hire are claims assessor and they would handle everything for you -for a fee!

All the landlord has to do is claim the OP overloaded the machine or did something else wrong to cause it to flood. It would be a case of he said she said unless the OP can prove they didn't overload the machine and I doubt they took photos of the machine before starting it.

D3PO

Victor wrote: »

I disagree. If Joe Bloggs and his washing machines upstairs destroy my lap-top, I'll be looking for money off Joe Bloggs.

Now, it might be a good idea for me to have contents insurance and Joe Bloggs's contents insurance won't cover me, but I'll still be looking for money off Joe Bloggs (and possibly his public liability insurance).

Paul is right Victor.

My neighbours boiler went on fire last year and was in a shed next to their next door neightbours conservatory. The fire caused some damage to said conservatory but they had to claim on their own insurance even though it wasnt their fault.

Im sure that would also have reflected any damage to any contents in the said conservatory if they had got damaged.

Anyway back on topic. OP your responsible for your own contents insurance so they EA or LL are not in anyway lible to pay you compensation Im afraid.