Landlord damaged laptop - question

Big Davey

beauf wrote: »

Great answer if one van guy is insured , assume they all are....



Etc

You dont hire the "van guy" your hire an established respected company to sell and fit an appliance for example DID. If the manager tells me his lads are insured I believe him. Things are not always cloak a dagger and not everybody behaves like the LL the OP has (who you are so desperate to defend). I would have fixed the girls computer if she was my tenant and I messed up like the LL did.

beauf

You seem determined to have an argument about nothing.

beauf wrote: »

My point was don't assume.

No idea where where the persecution complex came from.

Can you link to a LL insurance plan that covers damage to tenants property, by the LL doing work on a property.

Big Davey

beauf wrote: »

You seem determined to have an argument about nothing.

I dont agree :-)

The_Morrigan

Beauf Big Davey take it to pm you're derailing the thread.

beauf

140490 wrote: »

Well guys the landlord won't pay for cost and won't either split the repair cost, was fighting with him today as he want me out of the house if i open this laptop subject again as he said its not his responsability...... I went mad bit have nothing t do as i don't want to move to another place in this periode of christmas its a big hassle.....
My laptop is still laying in repair shop as i can't pay for it myb after christmas.

Anyway a big thanks to all of you, heared some great advices and opinions. Cheers

While its unfair, and I'd be furious if it was me, I don't know how you could claim off the LL for this. Maybe get some professional legal advice. Even ask the PRTB and Threshold. The later tend to be very enthusiastic about tenant rights but I'd check the info they give you. In the mean while I'd keep all the details of the damage and any communications, even if its writing down verbal communications. Then you might consider claiming against the LL after you leave.

I've spilt liquids on my laptop more than once. (doh) Luckily I was able to fix it. So I would consider looking at those personal insurance policies that covers mobiles and laptops. Especially for such and expensive device. I think its difficult to get traditional house contents insurance as a tenant. But others might advise you better on this.

Any decent person would at a minimum split the cost. So you dealing with a unreasonable person here unfortunately.

D3PO

the OP may have a case however it would be a civil one and nothing to do with their rights as a tenant unless somebody can point me to the contrary.

The LL says hes not paying hes a bit of an ass clearly but that still doesn't make him libel for it.

OP should go to their local Citizens advice and get some legal advise but I really don't see how either threshold or the PRTB can help here.

beauf

Me neither, but they might confirm that for the OP. Thus they'd know their options more clearly and then could weigh up the costs vs the best outcome, risks of legal action. And the stress/hassle of it.

D3PO

beauf wrote: »

Me neither, but they might confirm that for the OP. Thus they'd know their options more clearly and then could weigh up the costs vs the best outcome, risks of legal action. And the stress/hassle of it.

History says they will give their "opinion" Ive never heard of either saying you know what were not really sure about this.

Which in itself is a joke as it doesn't allow definitive advise be received by somebody contacting them.

djimi

I only suggested contacting PRTB/Threshold really as they would clarify if there is anything in tenancy law that might compel the landlord to pay for the damage. I suspect that there probably isnt, but then again Id be surprised if a landlord can enter a property to carry out repairs and cause damage to the tenants property without penalty.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

I suspect that there probably isnt, but then again Id be surprised if a landlord can enter a property to carry out repairs and cause damage to the tenants property without penalty.

I too would be surprised if a LL could get away without a level of liability in the matter however I don't think that liability falls under tenancy law.

Id suspect the OP would be need to look at bring the LL to the small claims court (as being a LL is a business they should be able to go this route)

beauf

D3PO wrote: »

I too would be surprised if a LL could get away without a level of liability in the matter however I don't think that liability falls under tenancy law.

Id suspect the OP would be need to look at bring the LL to the small claims court (as being a LL is a business they should be able to go this route)

I thought you can't go to SCC with LL/Tenant problems. You have to go to the PRTB. That's my thinking. Its not very clear cut though. As you say this in't the normal dispute intended for the PRTB.

D3PO wrote: »

History says they will give their "opinion" Ive never heard of either saying you know what were not really sure about this.

Which in itself is a joke as it doesn't allow definitive advise be received by somebody contacting them.

I don't really follow you. If you mean threshold, yeah I've not been impressed by them. PRTB I've found good. When you can actually get hold of them.

Ray Palmer

If you look at this logically the LL really has no liability. He effectively knocked over a cup of coffee and nothing more. The only problem is that cup of coffee was on or near a laptop. It isn't like he stamped on the keyboard by being careless.
I have worked in many offices and some don't allow you to bring liquids to your desk. Others allow liquids but they must have lids. Most actually don't allow you walk around without a lid on a cup. That is a rule often missed in offices but their insurance insists on it.

I would personally pay half but I do see the point of not paying anything

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you look at this logically the LL really has no liability. He effectively knocked over a cup of coffee and nothing more. The only problem is that cup of coffee was on or near a laptop. It isn't like he stamped on the keyboard by being careless.

Except thats not true though, is it? If someone broke your TV would you say that they just moved their arm and the TV happened to get in the way of it? Through his actions the laptop is now damaged.

I agree that the cup shouldnt have been where it was, but thats immaterial really; he should have ensured that the area was clear to work in first.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

Except thats not true though, is it? If someone broke your TV would you say that they just moved their arm and the TV happened to get in the way of it? Through his actions the laptop is now damaged.

I agree that the cup shouldnt have been where it was, but thats immaterial really; he should have ensured that the area was clear to work in first.

No really comparable is it. If somebody hit your tv and it fell off the stand and broke it would not have been securely fastened and the person is not liable. If it fell and broke the persons foot the person who owned the TV would be liable.

If you set something up that is not safe or wise you are liable not the person that happens upon the situation.

If the landlord walked in and the computer was on the ground and he stood on it would he be liable?

djimi

You have a strange view on liability Ray, Ill give you that! If someone hits your TV and it falls over then it is their fault. If they knock the TV onto their foot then it is their fault. If you stand on something that is on the ground then you are at fault for not watching where you are standing.

The landlord needs to take responsibility for their actions. The coffee mug did not jump out of nowhere; it was on the table the whole time, and a quick look around at the work area in advance would have shown the potential hazard.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

You have a strange view on liability Ray, Ill give you that! If someone hits your TV and it falls over then it is their fault. If they knock the TV onto their foot then it is their fault. If you stand on something that is on the ground then you are at fault for not watching where you are standing.

The landlord needs to take responsibility for their actions. The coffee mug did not jump out of nowhere; it was on the table the whole time, and a quick look around at the work area in advance would have shown the potential hazard.

I think you will find you have the strange idea of liability.

A guy was on here before complaining that his laptop and other possessions were damaged by a leak from a washing machine. The insurance company didn't pay out. The reason being the floor was not a safe place to store a laptop or a guitar as it turned out. Do you think an insurance company knows more about liability than you?

You will also find not having something securely fastened makes it the liability of the person who fastened it. Walk into a shop bump off a mirror and it falls and kills a child. According to you the person who bumped into the mirror is liable for the child's death. The courts certainly don't see it that way

If you leave something in a precarious situation and somebody happens across it the person who set it up is liable. Say somebody sets up the old bucket of water over a door and you open the door and get soaked. Your logic would say you got yourself wet and the other person has nothing to do with it. You see the problem with your logic yet?

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A guy was on here before complaining that his laptop and other possessions were damaged by a leak from a washing machine. The insurance company didn't pay out. The reason being the floor was not a safe place to store a laptop or a guitar as it turned out. Do you think an insurance company knows more about liability than you?

Youre using an insurance company, who will use quite literally any excuse possible to get out of paying, as a barometer of such a thing? Good one.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You will also find not having something securely fastened makes it the liability of the person who fastened it. Walk into a shop bump off a mirror and it falls and kills a child. According to you the person who bumped into the mirror is liable for the child's death. The courts certainly don't see it that way

If you leave something in a precarious situation and somebody happens across it the person who set it up is liable. Say somebody sets up the old bucket of water over a door and you open the door and get soaked. Your logic would say you got yourself wet and the other person has nothing to do with it. You see the problem with your logic yet?

Were not talking about killing a child here Ray.

In the example I gave, say someone was unpackaging something and accidentally smashed the front of the TV. By your logic they are not at fault because the TV got in their way. Even if they were to knock it off the table or whatever, you wouldnt need to show more than a reasonable effort was made to secure it in the first place (ie it wasnt hanging off the edge to begin with).

tipptom

140490 wrote: »

Thanks guys for this quick replys

Well i like having my cup of coffee in d morning and using my laptop as we all do.

Im quite a shy person so i don't ask someone to pay for something that happened in an accident specialy my friend but my landlord is ******

So i asked him to pay for repair cost wich he won't, so i may take that money from his next rent collection! And about repair cost that was the cheapest quote that i got, most of shops quoting me from 200 to 250e for keyboard replacement and cleanup inside.

thanks again guys

Whoa Dude,you are going to have to forego the shyness for the inevitable showdown on"Why is my rent short 180 nicker?"

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

Were not talking about killing a child here Ray.

You are right we are talking about how liability works. I explained how it works and insurance companies apply the law and are backed up by the law.

djimi wrote: »

In the example I gave, say someone was unpackaging something and accidentally smashed the front of the TV. By your logic they are not at fault because the TV got in their way. Even if they were to knock it off the table or whatever, you wouldnt need to show more than a reasonable effort was made to secure it in the first place (ie it wasnt hanging off the edge to begin with).

Again not what happened and not comparable to what I said. If they hit the tv and it fell of the stand then it wasn't secure and the person is not liable. I certainly didn't say it is ok to knock something because it gets in your way.

No mention of a reasonable effort to secure the coffee cup from having it content fall on the computer. No lid a reasonable distance from the laptop etc... THE OP was careless in leaving them together. They could have easily done the damage by their own actions easily. The LL knocked over a coffee nothing more nothing less. The set-up for the damage that would cause was the OPs fault. Why a LL should cover the situation more than an insurance company would is beyond me.

OP bring him to court if you truly see it as not your fault but I doubt you will win.

djimi

Agree to disagree if you like. The OP was careless but the landlord was liable as far as Im concerned. The coffee ended up on the laptop solely because of the actions of the landlord. A cup sitting on a table does not fall over by itself.

Big Davey

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Beauf Big Davey take it to pm you're derailing the thread.

Sorry about that :-)

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

Agree to disagree if you like. The OP was careless but the landlord was liable as far as Im concerned. The coffee ended up on the laptop solely because of the actions of the landlord. A cup sitting on a table does not fall over by itself.

There is no agree to disagree you are simply wrong and giving an opinion. If you could point to some proof or even a real life event that proves your point I could at least find it plausible. You are just stating your opinion without any back up.

I am explaining how it works giving you examples and a level of explanation. You are just saying I think this is how it should apply. No reason nor logic to it other than you think that is how it should apply.

The_Morrigan

Ray, Djimi, I've already warned users for derailing the thread. Take it to pm.

beauf

The issue seems to be is there a cost effective way of the OP getting some recompense from the LL. From this forum I don't think anyone came up with a clear cut answer to it. Maybe it can only be decided by some other body, be it a court or a PRTB or somewhere like that.

Ihaveanopinion

The PRTB are there to settle issues of tenancy - which this is not.

Small Claims - you could go down that road but I don't think the OP is going to get anywhere.

I agree its really annoying that this has happened and the OP is rightfully miffed about the whole thing. However, I echo what a lot of the others have said. While it might be reasonable to have a cup of coffee while you are on your laptop (we all do it), if the landlord is doing work/installing something in your house, you are obliged to clear away anything that might get damaged. It is the OPs own fault that the laptop got damaged by leaving a coffee cup anywhere near it, while the LL was working on installing a fridge. The LL has no liability here, no matter how much people might give out about it, and it is certainly not a tenancy issue.

I mean come on - its daft to blame someone else for your own carelessness in leaving liquid next to your €1000 laptop.

h2005

If the Landlord put some of the packaging from the fridge accidentally through the OPs tv would he be liable for that?

Ihaveanopinion

h2005 wrote: »

If the Landlord put some of the packaging from the fridge accidentally through the OPs tv would he be liable for that?

He probably would but he didnt put packaging through the laptop. There was an unsecured container of liquid next to an expensive piece of electronics. Therein lies the difference

D3PO

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Ray, Djimi, I've already warned users for derailing the thread. Take it to pm.

surely discussing potential liability is bang on topic.

The_Morrigan

D3PO wrote: »

surely discussing potential liability is bang on topic.

You've been here long enough to know that you don't arguing with a mod decision on thread.

Big Davey

h2005 wrote: »

If the Landlord put some of the packaging from the fridge accidentally through the OPs tv would he be liable for that?

Yes