Who pays for this breakage - me or the landlord?

darren1980

The other day the ceramic hob on the Hotpoint cooker cracked. Basically, a bowl I was carrying hit the corner of the hob and a crack went right up the middle. The hob is about 4 years old. After a little research it looks like the entire hob needs replacing, as you can't buy the ceramic top on its own (it's more than just a spare part) - cost would be a few hundred.

As a tenant, is this for me to pay, or would it be classed as a landlords expense, like a fridge or a washing machine that stopped working?

sarahlulu

I am no expert, but as you broke it, I can't see the landlord paying for it. If it had just stopped working might be a different story, but you cracked it yourself. Sorry!

D3PO

cut and dried case of tennants responsibility

knighted_1

ceramic hobs are covered for accidental damage on the house insurance ,really common occurance .

Paulw

That's assuming that the "house insurance" has contents cover, which a landlord may not have.

Talk to the landlord, but my reaction would be - you broke it, you replace it.

D3PO

knighted_1 wrote: »

ceramic hobs are covered for accidental damage on the house insurance ,really common occurance .

even if it is covered the excess is likely to make a claim pointless, besides which why should the landlords premium increase because hes made a claim for something he didnt damage.

darren1980

Actually, I have contents cover myself. Worth looking into.

Bob Z

darren1980 wrote: »

Actually, I have contents cover myself. Worth looking into.

How much does contents cover cost? Do you keep it if you move address?

D3PO

darren1980 wrote: »

Actually, I have contents cover myself. Worth looking into.

you cannot insure something you dont own. so cannot be covered by your policy

darren1980

Bob Z wrote: »

How much does contents cover cost? Do you keep it if you move address?

€65 a year. It's like any other insurance policy - when something changes, so does the cost.

D3PO wrote: »

you cannot insure something you dont own. so cannot be covered by your policy

But they don't know it's not mine.

Agent Smith

darren1980 wrote: »

But they don't know it's not mine.

And thats fraud

Alkers

I don't think you need to own it. You need to have an 'insurable interest' in it, i.e. benefit in it's existence. I would think a cooker in your long term residence would fall under this category.

sceptre

Simona1986 wrote: »

I don't think you need to own it. You need to have an 'insurable interest' in it, i.e. benefit in it's existence. I would think a cooker in your long term residence would fall under this category.

It well could. Depends on the policy obviously but you're entirely correct about insurable interest being enough for the possibility of it being covered.

darren1980

The insurance point is moot, as it turns out the policy doesn't cover accidental damage.

sambuka41

oh I have a question along these lines. When i moved into my new place (bout 1 month ago) the door on the washing machine was cracked,guy said it didnt effect how the machine worked so we didnt bother to insist on new one.

Now the door broke and fell off completely,so am I or landlord responsible???

I didnt get my insurance renewed when i moved

billybigunz

I would say the landlord. The equipment broke under fair wear and tear.

iMax

What would happen in the event of cigarette burns in a carpet ? Landlord or tenant ?

Bob Z

iMax wrote: »

What would happen in the event of cigarette burns in a carpet ? Landlord or tenant ?

Tenant

Victor

Are kitchen hobs not designed to take a bit of abuse, heavy saucepans and all that?

sambuka41 wrote: »

oh I have a question along these lines. When i moved into my new place (bout 1 month ago) the door on the washing machine was cracked,guy said it didnt effect how the machine worked so we didnt bother to insist on new one.

Now the door broke and fell off completely,so am I or landlord responsible???

In this case, the landlord, the door was already broken, it has now completely failed. I, of course, assume you haven't been swinging off it and broke it that way.

iMax wrote: »

What would happen in the event of cigarette burns in a carpet ? Landlord or tenant ?

One cigarette burn after 5 years. Landlord.

Carpet that looks like its been napalmed within a week. Tenant.

D3PO

Victor wrote: »

.One cigarette burn after 5 years. Landlord.

Id have to disagree with you on this one. A worn carpet pile fair enough landlord, but actual damage and thats what a cigarette burn is weather it be 1 or 100 is tennant IMO

ZYX

darren1980 wrote: »

The other day the ceramic hob on the Hotpoint cooker cracked. Basically, a bowl I was carrying hit the corner of the hob and a crack went right up the middle. The hob is about 4 years old. After a little research it looks like the entire hob needs replacing, as you can't buy the ceramic top on its own (it's more than just a spare part) - cost would be a few hundred.

As a tenant, is this for me to pay, or would it be classed as a landlords expense, like a fridge or a washing machine that stopped working?

You are responsible so it seems fair that you should pay. The question is how much should you pay?
It would seem unfair to expect you to pay for a new hob when you broke a 4 year old one. The landlord can write the cost off against tax at 15% a year (over 6 years). So after 4 years 60% of the value of the hob is gone by depreciation. Offering to pay half the cost of a new hob would seem to be the fairest.

D3PO

ZYX wrote: »

You are responsible so it seems fair that you should pay. The question is how much should you pay?
It would seem unfair to expect you to pay for a new hob when you broke a 4 year old one. The landlord can write the cost off against tax at 15% a year (over 6 years). So after 4 years 60% of the value of the hob is gone by depreciation. Offering to pay half the cost of a new hob would seem to be the fairest.

Its a reasonable point however the landlord could equally argue that you can either have another second hand one and pay the full cost or he could say well i will give you the write off cost over 6 years.

Now that would be being a pain for the sake of it but its a valid counter argument

In fairness the understanding in general is you break you pay not that you pay x% because tax can be written off against the rest. I really dont think the OP can argue here.