Landlord/ Tenant issue: need advice

[ernie]

Pretty clearly the tenants responsibility based on the lease and evaluation from the plumber.

Secondly, having seen plugged toilets from the usual cause to toys being flushed down I can't imagine how one doesn't notice it is blocked before leaving the bathroom. It tends to be completely obvious from the get go. Now not knowing the tenants etc or the type of people they are but my first thought goes to intent. But I'm a cynical SOB by nature.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Your tenant agreement appears to address the issue pretty clearly (from what you've quoted).

I would also check the Alberta Tenancies Regulations (which takes precedent over any lease agreement) to see if something in there can help you. I would be amazed if there isn't something in there about 'basic maintenance' or 'proper use' of equipment/facilities.

No matter what, I would argue that you have a strong (if not clear cut) case to have the tenant's insurance cover the damages.

Like with anything else....be informed, be reasonable, be firm.

[EYE_Overstand]

thank you for everyones comments.

its hard dealing with tenants who believe "the world is against them" and "nothing is there fault" blah blah blah

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by EYE_Overstand

thank you for everyones comments.

its hard dealing with tenants who believe "the world is against them" and "nothing is there fault" blah blah blah

Sounds to me like your best / most likely course of action is to pay for the damages and then promptly evict them. It's Calgary, you'll find new ones.

[photon]

You can give 24 hours notice to a tenant if they are damaging the property, if they don't leave then you have 10 days to apply to the court to have the court confirm the tenancy is ended. But I don't know if this would qualify as that kind of situation though, I think that's more for situations where tenants are actively doing intentional damage.

http://landlord.landlordandtenant.or...ch.aspx?id=833

This sounds more like it'd be a situation where, if they don't pay, you could apply to the court to have them (or their insurance) pay for damages.

For insurance, we've been recently making sure our tenants carry their own insurance as a requirement for tenancy, sounds like this would be a good example of why to do that.

You can't just evict them for no reason, make sure your situation would fall under the few circumstances where eviction is possible (if they pay damages that would count as a remedy I think and the agreement would still be in effect, you'd have to apply to court to have the tenancy ended I think, but that's just a guess).

[taco.vidal]

Something doesn't add up.

Assume the tenant took a big dump and used a lot of TP to clean up or the lady tenant flushed a tampon down the toilet.

It takes at least a second or two or more for the toilet to plug then overflow. Is a single flush that partially overflowed enough to cause all the water damage that happened? Even with an old school high flow toilet, is that enough water in one flush to get to all the places the water reached?

Originally Posted by EYE_Overstand

i have managed a few of the family condos for the past 5 years and thankfully never had a problem with anything.... till a few weeks ago

My tenants called to inform me that while at work their apartment flooded and it had leaked to the one below.

the plumber had to come in as well as a restoration company to start ripping up carpet and underlay etc.

this is the exact quote from the plummbers note:

"
-gained access to suite and found toilet backed up and over flowing.
-plunged toilet, verified operation left water off to toilet. suggest flapper and valve be replaced
"

this is what the dispatch emailed me from the plumbing company:

" unfortunately our tech plungered the toilet and it cleared, he did not snake it or remove it, so there is no way to tell what the blockage was"

This is what the plummber wrote the condo manager:

"the tenant is on the top floor and the tub wasnt backed up and it ties into the same line as the toilet. i was able to plunge the toilet and had no issues getting it to go dowm telling me it was a toilet issue and nothing to do with the building piping"

This is what the condo manager said in a few different emails:

1. "yes the toilet was plugged"
2." i spoke with the technician from ____. he advised that the toilet was plugged, it leaked and over flowed your unit ad the one below"
3. "they (plumbers) already determined that it was the toilet that was plugged, it has nothing to do with the building. They plunged it only a few times and it unplugged"

_________________________________

thats the story. i was out of town when this happened and i have still not received a bill for the damage. ,y insurance doesnt cover water back up, and my tenants have insurance. They are saying it was not their fault and they are not willing to take this on.

What do i do? any suggestions?

thank you very much for time and responses

[Rathji]

As someone who has lived in a suite where poop water rained down into my kitchen for a couple mins before someone was finally able to get the toilet plunged, I can say that it is certainly possible for real damage to occur in the time before the water on stops.

[EYE_Overstand]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Sounds to me like your best / most likely course of action is to pay for the damages and then promptly evict them. It's Calgary, you'll find new ones.

who's going to pay for the damages? the rent is not the important part haha. as part of the lease agreement it says tenants are responsible for any flood due to a plugged sink toilet tub etc.

[EYE_Overstand]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Something doesn't add up.

Assume the tenant took a big dump and used a lot of TP to clean up or the lady tenant flushed a tampon down the toilet.

It takes at least a second or two or more for the toilet to plug then overflow. Is a single flush that partially overflowed enough to cause all the water damage that happened? Even with an old school high flow toilet, is that enough water in one flush to get to all the places the water reached?

all i know is that the plumber, building manager, plumbing dispatch and communication all indicate that the toilet was plugged/ and the water resided and emptied after the plumber plunged the toilet a few time

[Rjcsjc62]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Something doesn't add up.

Assume the tenant took a big dump and used a lot of TP to clean up or the lady tenant flushed a tampon down the toilet.

It takes at least a second or two or more for the toilet to plug then overflow. Is a single flush that partially overflowed enough to cause all the water damage that happened? Even with an old school high flow toilet, is that enough water in one flush to get to all the places the water reached?

The OP doesnt say what the extent of the damage is, but the fact that there is any kind of real damage had me drawing the same conclusion at first. After reading the Plumbers notes again I think what happened here is a combo of 2 problems: 1) The tiolet flapper/valve is leaking and constantly running water. No big deal, most people put off a minor repair like this for a few days or a week... until 2) Tiolet plugs from use, and user walks away, has breakfast, goes to work, etc.

This scenerio is easier for me to believe because a) the user didnt notice at first and the water needed time to overflow, and eventually find a penetration to the floor below. b) The plumber notes that the flaaper needs replacing, and left the toilet's water supply off, and c) under this scenerio, the overflowing water would appear to be mostly clear and not the brown trout, white mice, disgusting mess that you all pictured in your head when you first read the OP about a sewer back up.

[EYE_Overstand]

Originally Posted by Rjcsjc62

The OP doesnt say what the extent of the damage is, but the fact that there is any kind of real damage had me drawing the same conclusion at first. After reading the Plumbers notes again I think what happened here is a combo of 2 problems: 1) The tiolet flapper/valve is leaking and constantly running water. No big deal, most people put off a minor repair like this for a few days or a week... until 2) Tiolet plugs from use, and user walks away, has breakfast, goes to work, etc.

This scenerio is easier for me to believe because a) the user didnt notice at first and the water needed time to overflow, and eventually find a penetration to the floor below. b) The plumber notes that the flaaper needs replacing, and left the toilet's water supply off, and c) under this scenerio, the overflowing water would appear to be mostly clear and not the brown trout, white mice, disgusting mess that you all pictured in your head when you first read the OP about a sewer back up.

So is this negligence by the owner or tenant? It was clogged and after the toilet was plunged, the water went down and was gone. Also, if I have a fault "iffy" toilet... I wouldn't use it till it was repaired. I'm not sure what this boils down to.

[EYE_Overstand]

This is all new to me, so why I need all this advice. Thank you guys again

[Rjcsjc62]

Originally Posted by EYE_Overstand

So is this negligence by the owner or tenant? It was clogged and after the toilet was plunged, the water went down and was gone. Also, if I have a fault "iffy" toilet... I wouldn't use it till it was repaired. I'm not sure what this boils down to.

If the flapper in the toilet is passing this could carry on for days, weeks or whatever. It is a nuisance at best. I would guess that many of us reading this right now have a toilet that passing a little water and haven't bothered to change the flapper. It happens. It would only ever be a problem if the toilet was clogged.

The plumber wrote that the flapper needs replacing, and that he left the water supply to the toilet off. That's why I reached this conclusion.

To answer your question, unfortunately I have zero experience as a landlord and I have no idea how to solve your problem with the tenant. I know more about plumbing. Taco, above, suggested that he couldn't see how a clogged toilet could flood a suite below, since the water would stop after it delivered its 6 litres of water (or whatever) per flush, and I would agree. I was painting a picture of how it could.

Take the toilet out of the equation. Lets say hypothetically that the tenant had a drip in their faucet (another common plumbing nuisance). Now lets say that the drain was clogged, and water couldnt drain out of the basin. If the tenant went away for a long period of time and the water overflowed onto the floor causing similar damage below.

Is the tenant responsible for reporting the leaky faucet to their landlord? Or is the landlord expected to perform routine maintanence checks of their property?

Logic would suggest that the tenant would notice the dripping faucet and report it to you, and you would fix it. But if they didn't, who is responsible?

Does the tenant change the filter in the furnace? do you do it every couple of months? or do they wait until it becomes so clogged that the fan switch trips and you get a call of "no heat".

These would be similar examples, I don't know the answer regarding landlord vs. tenant reposibilities, but my best guess is that the tenant would still be obligated to tell you that the toilet was passing water. How else would you know?

[mykalberta]

I dont know alot about how this situation might be resolved, but the tenant would only have tenant (content) insurance and have no insurance for the actual building.

So its no wonder they are saying its not their fault as they would have to pay out of pocket. Small claims seems like the only avenue for this type of thing along with keeping their damage deposit.

I dont know how the legal situation would work in this case. Could they say that the toilet wasnt working properly and kept flooding even if it should have stopped?

[ken0042]

Wouldn't the simplest course of action to be to ask the tenant for their insurance info? Then speak to his insurance company. I'm sure they know how the process works.

FWIW- I had this happen to me a while ago (around 2000.) Neighbour above me had a water filter or something that burst, and we had a small flood. His insurance paid for all my damages; not the building's insurance.