Fire Damage caused by tenant

Who is liable if a tenant’s phone charger starts a fire? Luckily not much damage, <$2k. I presume this damage is the tenant’s liability however the blind that was destroyed, carpet badly damaged and the paint damaged where all things that was getting old and needing replacement in the not too distant future. Perhaps they need to be apportioned based on estimated remaining life?

Before anyone asks, not worth claiming on insurance, have a high excess.

Cheers,

smallbuyer

 

Tenant is responsible

 

Send them a breach notice to rectify and make good all damage by a certain date.

If they do not then you can get the work done and change to tenant or claim through bond.

If damage exceeds bond you can do a magistrates court order for remaining debt.

Need to establish a statement of debt through tribunal first

Or

Claim through insurance
(Sorry being cheeky can't help it)

 

The last time we had a similar situation (the tenant burned down the entire kitchen) we claimed on insurance and they liaised with the tenants directly.

 

Thanks for your replies. So the tenant should replace everything to new even though the room would need to be painted and the carpet/blind replaced in the new few years? Seems slightly unfair from the tenants point of view and usually the tenancy laws never allow anything to be unfair to the tenant.
Damage is really minor thankfully (as far as house fires go) and my handyman will have little problem fixing it all.
Should i get the tenant to sign something agreeing that is the handyman does the work they agree to pay x towards the repairs?

 

While it might appear differently at first instance, there's a real chance the tenant might not actually be liable for that damage. The tenant's negligence needs to have caused the damage.

So it would depend on how the tenant's phone charger caused the fire for example.

 

Charger was plugged into their power board and caught fire. No damage to my powerpoint or their phone, just their charger and their power board (and the curtain, window, carpet, paint after that). Probably a cheap $2 charger. I would think if their device catches fire the fault is obvious. I would think If an electrical item (eg washing machine) included with the unit caught fire it would be my issue unless i can show they where miss using it or it was damaged and they didn't report it. Please tell me if you think my assumptions are wrong though and why

Regarding the stone from the mower i would think the person doing the mowing or whoever employed them but their is still some grey which is another reason why i dont have grass in my rentals if possible.

 

I get what you mean, but the legal test for liability isn't "whoever owns or provided the thing".

If a landlord provided the washing machine that caught fire and damaged the property, they would be liable - but not because they were necessarily negligent - because there would be probably no negligence on behalf of the tenant.

You can still have a scenario where a tenant's belonging catches fire and damages the property, and the tenant was not negligent - which means the landlord is liable because of the 'default' position of the landlord being responsible for repairs and maintenance.

If a device catches fire, there does seem to be some fault with the item - but again that doesn't mean the tenant was negligent - to assume so is to assume any consumer is at fault if a product doesn't work, which clearly isn't the case.

The end result might be that a landlord has a claim against the defective product retailer or manufacturer - but not necessarily the tenant.

Shrug - I'm not saying that it will definitely pan out as I suggest, but it is very much a possibility.

 

The tenants should have contents insurance. If they dont it will cost them.

 

So if the washing machine i supplied caught fire (through no fault of anyones) i (or my insurance) wouldn't be liable for the tenants burnt personal processions? They would need to claim on their own contents insurance or hit up the maker/importer/seller of the washing machine?

In this case good luck trying to get anything out of the ebay selling from china who sold the cheap phone charger (im only guessing here).

The law works in mysterious ways but almost ways in favor of tenants.

 

Yeah you get it - works both ways. If no one's negligent, then the damages and costs would 'lie where they fall'. Each individual situation might turn on its own facts though, so specific legal advice would apply, especially if there is a lot of money at stake.

 

Insurance doesn't change or affect legal liability for damage at first instance between each party - insurance would just be able to step into the shoes of the insured party.

So I have been involved in quite a few cases where the tenant's possessions where damaged and the tenant was able to 'claim on the landlord's insurance'. I say that, but in reality, it was a legal claim against the landlord, and the landlord's insurer stepped in.

The tenant was able to do that because they had a legal cause of action against the landlord for the damage and loss.

I remember one that was quite a big claim after the ceiling collapsed on top of a tenant and her family in a relatively new build. Luckily they weren't injured but nearly all their belongings were damaged or destroyed, mostly by the insulation that covered and went into everything. Owner tried to tell the tenant that it wasn't his problem and "too bad if you don't have your own contents insurance". Yeah, courts disagreed.

 

I have always found it strange the NSW standard resi lease does not even mention insurance but it rambles endlessly about water. Our agent mods the lease to clearly specify that the tenants acknowledge that their possessions are uninsured and that the owner provides no indemnity for loss whatsoever the cause and they should arrange their own cover for all loss or risks for contents.

That said our LL cover has protection if a tenant was to claim such a loss and we see that as cover for negligence etc. eg caused by a burst pipe etc. The way I see it is the insurer would foot the costs to defend it if they dont want to pay.

 

My understanding is that if the tenant purchased something from a foreign Ebay seller, then the tenant is considered the "importer" which would make them liable for all sorts of things under the Australian Consumer Law.

And if the ACL doesn't cover landlords in situations like this (I'm not sure if it does) then the tenant may possibly be considered negligent for importing and then using a device which doesn't comply with Australian electrical standards (a lot of dodgy Ebay imports don't comply)

Which poses another question... Should a landlord/agent inspect the compliance labels on all the tenant's electrical appliances as part of the rental inspection?

 

I suspect that a clause saying that they have no indemnity "whatever the cause" may be illegal and this would possibly invalidate the entire clause (this would depend on the wording). Has this clause been run past a lawyer?