NSW Tenant refusing to pay rent due to leekage

I think we're all well aware of what it does, and it's clear OP's tenant knows what it does do because they sealed it as they were going to be away for several months and we all know what happens if you do not routinely flush a drain (the bend clears, and the smell of raw sewage can come back up it, as well as flies and other nasties). The tenant could probably argue - and possibly win as a result - that their action was the reasonable one.

 

Well, living in Victoria I’ve never encountered a floor drain in any of the houses I’ve been to. It’s not really a thing here. I would have assumed it was to assist with floor washing!

And - hearing about the smell and flies - I’m not going to suggest putting one in if I build in future.

 

I believe they're more in apartments and such rather than freestanding homes, or those bathrooms that do not actually have a shower cubicle but just a shower over the floor. My house certainly doesn't have one either!

 

Floor wastes have been a requirement in NSW since Noah was a lad, the only change has been if the floor grades to the outside eg in laundries or if the grade is to the shower. One allowance is an air gap around the bath waste allowing water to go to the drain.

Floor wastes can be 100mm down to 50mm dia (but still larger than the basin waste).

They are there specifically to handle larger volumes of water.

 

That's not correct at all, it's only a requirement from the final sub-board circuits and it depends on how old the home is, it can still be under the older standards.

 

There must be an equivalent saying to 'drive it like a rental car' for rental homes

 

It would be more reasonable to leave the drain uncovered as, like I said before, clearing the smell by airing a property and pouring some water in the drain itself is a hell of a lot easier to achieve than blocking the drain and cleaning up the mess (damaged furniture, carpets etc) let alone other affected properties.

TOTALLY AGREE..

 

If the landlord wants to hold the tenant responsible, the burden is on them to establish that blocking the drain was unreasonable, not just 'not the most reasonable'.

I'd never think to do this, and was also very surprised to learn it's a thing, but the fact that some not-insignificant number of others seem to do it suggests that 'unreasonable' would be a hard threshold to reach.

 

From the outset, I have not said that the tenant is totally responsible.

Here is exactly what I said, and I've highlighted the operative word below.

 

Apportionment only becomes relevant after a court finds that multiple parties were negligent.

But the threshold of "unreasonable" still applies before the tenant is found negligent and thus partly liable; there's not a lower threshold for lower % liability.