Fridge freezer broke

RED PASSION

Hiya I live in a rented house the fridge freezer broke last week and I have lost €40 worth of food, is the landlord entitled to reimburse me for my loss as he owns the fride freezer or could he make a contribution as a good will gesture for my loss of food. I have little money to replace it until pay day.

Barracuda1

RED PASSION wrote: »

Hiya I live in a rented house the fridge freezer broke last week and I have lost €40 worth of food, is the landlord entitled to reimburse me for my loss as he owns the fride freezer or could he make a contribution as a good will gesture for my loss of food. I have little money to replace it until pay day.

I'd say try getting a new fridge first. Was the appliance on the blink and did you contact the Landlord about it.

djimi

I dont believe that the landlord is responsible for your loss of food, no. I could be wrong though.

D3PO

Your right Djimi the landlord is not responsible.

you could claim on your contents insurance but as the excess will be greater than 40 yoyo and your premium would take a hit it would be pointless to do so.

TheOldHand

D3PO wrote: »

Your right Djimi the landlord is not responsible.

you could claim on your contents insurance but as the excess will be greater than 40 yoyo and your premium would take a hit it would be pointless to do so.

Again you should try and avoid giving definitive answers.
The tenant might have a case if the fridge freezer was old and in poor condition particularly if they had previously mentioned it to the landlord.

murphaph

Oh God. We're now reduced to tenants expecting their landlords to pay for the food inside a failed freezer? The LL (ridiculously IMO but anyway) can be expected to replace or repair the broken freezer but that's where his liability stops if the unit failed suddenly and without warning (as they often do).

I dare say most tenants don't even bother taking out contents insurance...probably think the landlord will cover their losses in a fire/burglary!

OP: maybe the landlord also has little money, have you considered that??!

heffoo

murphaph wrote: »

Oh God. We're now reduced to tenants expecting their landlords to pay for the food inside a failed freezer? The LL (ridiculously IMO but anyway) can be expected to replace or repair the broken freezer but that's where his liability stops if the unit failed suddenly and without warning (as they often do).

I dare say most tenants don't even bother taking out contents insurance...probably think the landlord will cover their losses in a fire/burglary!

OP: maybe the landlord also has little money, have you considered that??!

Well your obviously an ass of a landlord god help your tenant if you have them, the op asked a simple question in sure they don't want replies from sour smart ass people like yourself

murphaph

heffoo wrote: »

Well your obviously an ass of a landlord god help your tenant if you have them, the op asked a simple question in sure they don't want replies from sour smart ass people like yourself

The OP wants to see if he can offload his bad luck onto someone else. No more and no less.

TheOldHand

murphaph wrote: »

The OP wants to see if he can offload his bad luck onto someone else. No more and no less.

It's not his bad luck. It is not his fridge freezer. The landlord might have cut corners and bought a far cheaper and less reliable fridge freezer than they would have themselves in their own home. This has caused the tenant a loss.

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

Again you should try and avoid giving definitive answers.
The tenant might have a case if the fridge freezer was old and in poor condition particularly if they had previously mentioned it to the landlord.

your wrong again. but its ok come on here and contradict everybody. If you weren't so cocky you would be funny :rolleyes:

again show me a PRTB ruling in favour of the tennant whos food has been spoilt by a faulty fridge. You cant you just come out with spurious opinion.

djimi

TheOldHand wrote: »

It's not his bad luck. It is not his fridge freezer. The landlord might have cut corners and bought a far cheaper and less reliable fridge freezer than they would have themselves in their own home. This has caused the tenant a loss.

Appliances break down; its a fact of life. Theres nothing in law to say that the landlord has to buy state of the art. So long as the landlord is not supplying appliances that are faulty then I dont see how they can be held accountable for the appliance breaking down. In reality its in the landlords best interest to put in half decent appliances so that they are not having to repair/replace them every year.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

Appliances break down; its a fact of life. Theres nothing in law to say that the landlord has to buy state of the art. So long as the landlord is not supplying appliances that are faulty then I dont see how they can be held accountable for the appliance breaking down. In reality its in the landlords best interest to put in half decent appliances so that they are not having to repair/replace them every year.

dont you know Djimi this newbie is the judge and jury of all things irish rental related. sure he wrote the book on it :rolleyes:

TheOldHand

I had a piece of crap washing machine stain my clothes and ruin some of them. I mentioned the issue to the landlord and he had it repaired. If he didn't then I would have sued him for the costs of new clothes for any subsequent stainings. The OP has a case if he can prove any kind of meanness from the landlord.

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

I had a piece of crap washing machine stain my clothes and ruin some of them. I mentioned the issue to the landlord and he had it repaired. If he didn't then I would have sued him for the costs of new clothes for any subsequent stainings. The OP has a case if he can prove any kind of meanness from the landlord.

he had it repaired because he legally had to. He didnt have a legal obligation to replace your clothes though.

TheOldHand

D3PO wrote: »

he had it repaired because he legally had to. He didnt have a legal obligation to replace your clothes though.

I know that. If he didn't have it repaired then I would have a case for any future loss.

djimi

TheOldHand wrote: »

I had a piece of crap washing machine stain my clothes and ruin some of them. I mentioned the issue to the landlord and he had it repaired. If he didn't then I would have sued him for the costs of new clothes for any subsequent stainings. The OP has a case if he can prove any kind of meanness from the landlord.

Something tells me you wouldnt have gotten very far trying to take legal action against the landlord for damage you caused to your clothes by putting them through an appliance that you knew to have a fault (especially if the landlord has it in writing that you knew the appliance had the fault).

TheOldHand

djimi wrote: »

Something tells me you wouldnt have gotten very far trying to take legal action against the landlord for damage you caused to your clothes by putting them through an appliance that you knew to have a fault (especially if the landlord has it in writing that you knew the appliance had the fault).

I could bill him for dry cleaning, you get the point. There is definitely a liability to damages for faulty appliances if there is any kind of inaction on the landlords part.

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

I could bill him for dry cleaning, you get the point. There is definitely a liability to damages for faulty appliances if there is any kind of inaction on the landlords part.

again a grey area. Theres no definitive date provided for repair. In a timely manner could mean anything. So no you couldnt just bung your clothes off to the dry cleaners and bill him.

After a period of time that is still arbitory you could and expect to win in a dispute but you couldnt just turn around for example after 3 days and garantee that he will have to bear the cost. Now after 2 weeks clearly you would have a stronger case but again what is in a timely manner a day a week, two weeks ?

TheOldHand

What am I doing with my life discussing fridge freezers and washing machines on boards.

RED PASSION

TheOldHand wrote: »

It's not his bad luck. It is not his fridge freezer. The landlord might have cut corners and bought a far cheaper and less reliable fridge freezer than they would have themselves in their own home. This has caused the tenant a loss.

it stopped working a few days before i noticed, things started going bad, there was a lot of ice build up on the freezer element for months was this the cause of the breakdown I was never told by my landlord to defrost it or anything so all my stuff is ruined lots of meat etc etc. :mad:

TheOldHand

RED PASSION wrote: »

it stopped working a few days before i noticed, things started going bad, there was a lot of ice build up on the freezer element for months was this the cause of the breakdown I was never told by my landlord to defrost it or anything so all my stuff is ruined lots of meat etc etc. :mad:

Ah. Yeah that is your fault. You need to defrost your freezers every now and then. Lesson learned.

RED PASSION

TheOldHand wrote: »

Ah. Yeah that is your fault. You need to defrost your freezers every now and then. Lesson learned.

it is still not working after defrosting now and the fridge is broken, i did not cause this or was not told to carry out any maintenance to this appliance so why should i suffer the loss of 2 bin bags worth of food. :mad::mad::mad:

I must eat out over the next few days til it is sorted and take time off work for the possibly a new fridge to come whilst other housemates carry on about their business as normal
before some smart ass says so, i am not claiming for eating out and loss of earnings just the initial loss of food.

TheOldHand

You let the ice build up ye goose.

convert

By all means contact the landlord to explain that the fridge/freezer isn't working and that you expect it to be repaired/replaced as soon as possible. However, with regards to the food: what would you do it if was your own freezer? Would you regularly defrost an appliance that you own? If so, why didn't you think of defrosting the appliance in the place that you're renting? And if your own appliance broke, who would you ask to compensate you for the food you lost? The manufacturer because they didn't explicitly tell you that you should know to make sure to defrost the appliance regularly? Also, how come you or your housemates didn't notice the freezer hadn't stopped working until a few days later? If you'd noticed on day one/two, you probably wouldn't have had to discard all the food.

With regards to having to eat out every day until it's fixed/replaced: that's not true. How about using pre-prepared meals for a few days? They won't kill you for a short period of time.

Btw, what are your hosuemates doing about it? And how come they can't stay at home while the new fridge/freezer is being replaced?

ABajaninCork

Our washing machine started to shred the clothes! :eek:. It was repaired once. In the end, I installed the washing machine I'd brought with me and asked the landlord to remove his, which he did.

That machine packed up, so we bought another.

OP. I guess you can ask the landlord to replace the food. But I wouldn't bet on it.

ABajaninCork

RED PASSION wrote: »

it is still not working after defrosting now and the fridge is broken, i did not cause this or was not told to carry out any maintenance to this appliance so why should i suffer the loss of 2 bin bags worth of food. :mad::mad::mad:

Are you serious, OP? Why do you need to be told you have to defrost the freezer on a regular basis? Is this your first time renting?? Unless it's a frost-free model, didn't you get a clue when the ice started to build up? And you DO have to keep the freezer clean...

If I were the landlord, I wouldn't be at all happy to hear that.

D3PO

Forget the food OP your lucky the landlord isnt charging you for the repair or replacement of the fridge freezer as this isnt really wear and tear its misuse of the appliance by you and your housemates.

ignorance isnt an excuse.

the_syco

RED PASSION wrote: »

it is still not working after defrosting now and the fridge is broken, i did not cause this or was not told to carry out any maintenance to this appliance so why should i suffer the loss of 2 bin bags worth of food. :mad::mad::mad:

Firstly, defrosting stops it from breaking, but once broken, defrosting won't do jack.

Secondly, do some research on any appliances that you depend on so much.

Thirdly, if you ask the landlord to replace the food that you lost, do you have the receipts of all the food, and do you still have the bags of food as proof?

Finally, asking for the food to be replaced may further delay the fridge-freezer being repaired/replaced.

Scortho

D3PO wrote: »

Forget the food OP your lucky the landlord isnt charging you for the repair or replacement of the fridge freezer as this isnt really wear and tear its misuse of the appliance by you and your housemates.

ignorance isnt an excuse.

As he may have led to it being broken/broke it could the landlord take it out of his deposit?

D3PO

Scortho wrote: »

As he may have led to it being broken/broke it could the landlord take it out of his deposit?

I believe so yes. Now of course if the OP disputed it the LL would have to be able to prove to the PRTB that this was infact the cause. Im not sure if its possible to get an engineers report stating this was why it failed but if they did well then its a slam dunk win for the LL.

fasttalkerchat

murphaph wrote: »

Oh God. We're now reduced to tenants expecting their landlords to pay for the food inside a failed freezer? The LL (ridiculously IMO but anyway) can be expected to replace or repair the broken freezer but that's where his liability stops if the unit failed suddenly and without warning (as they often do).

I dare say most tenants don't even bother taking out contents insurance...probably think the landlord will cover their losses in a fire/burglary!

OP: maybe the landlord also has little money, have you considered that??!

I don't think a tenant can take out contents insurance even if they wanted to. Isn't it the case that you can't insure what you don't own?

hdowney

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I don't think a tenant can take out contents insurance even if they wanted to. Isn't it the case that you can't insure what you don't own?

True, but you can and should insure what you DO own. It differs from rental to rental, but some people own things like the telly etc, you should (and do afaik) have the right to insure these

djimi

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I don't think a tenant can take out contents insurance even if they wanted to. Isn't it the case that you can't insure what you don't own?

A tenant can, and absolutely should, take out contents insurance. The point of contents insurance is that you are insuring everything that you do own in the property.

TheOldHand

djimi wrote: »

A tenant can, and absolutely should, take out contents insurance. The point of contents insurance is that you are insuring everything that you do own in the property.

Depends on how much stuff you have. If found that it was incredibly bad value and not worth having.

3DataModem

RED PASSION wrote: »

it stopped working a few days before i noticed, things started going bad, there was a lot of ice build up on the freezer element for months was this the cause of the breakdown I was never told by my landlord to defrost it or anything so all my stuff is ruined lots of meat etc etc. :mad:

"I was never told to defrost it"

Sounds like your fault to me.

djimi

TheOldHand wrote: »

Depends on how much stuff you have. If found that it was incredibly bad value and not worth having.

Costs me a shade over €100 for the year to get contents insurance up to €25k. Its a no brainer as far as Im concerned.

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

Depends on how much stuff you have. If found that it was incredibly bad value and not worth having.

until the place gets robbed, flooded or burnt down and then you think why the hell didnt i just insure my stuff.

TheOldHand

Last time I checked it was nearer 200 quid when it should be about 30.

Why pay 25k contents insurance when I have about 5k of contents. The only likely loss is a burglary and that would be about 2k of electronics gone. The chance of a fire destroying everything is probably 1 in 20,000.

Then you'd have an excess and the hassle of claiming. I have tens of thousands in savings so I'd never be stuck. I think it's for people who have no savings and are poor at maths.

ABajaninCork

TheOldHand wrote: »

Last time I checked it was nearer 200 quid when it should be about 30.

Why pay 25k contents insurance when I have about 5k of contents. The only likely loss is a burglary and that would be about 2k of electronics gone. The chance of a fire destroying everything is probably 1 in 20,000.

Then you'd have an excess and the hassle of claiming. I have tens of thousands in savings so I'd never be stuck. I think it's for people who have no savings and are poor at maths.

I am renting, and have insurance. Does that make me poor at maths? Of course not!! Do you drive? Do you have insurance? You do know that if you have an accident, the same procedure will also apply?? You pay the excess, and then the insurance takes care of the rest. That is how it works.

It's only people too poor to afford contents insurance or arrogant know-it-alls like you that think it'll never happen to them that don't...

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

Last time I checked it was nearer 200 quid when it should be about 30.

Why pay 25k contents insurance when I have about 5k of contents. The only likely loss is a burglary and that would be about 2k of electronics gone. The chance of a fire destroying everything is probably 1 in 20,000.

Then you'd have an excess and the hassle of claiming. I have tens of thousands in savings so I'd never be stuck. I think it's for people who have no savings and are poor at maths.

I would be surprised if most renters only had 5k of stuff. Electronics and clothes alone would in many cases tally that high if not higher. without considering anything else.

fair enough if you only have 5k of stuff then of course it makes no sense in insuring it at the cost of the premiums.

But trust me a fire gutting a place totally is not a 1 in 20,000 occurance unfortunatly. I've not figured out if your a troll or just arrogant but contents insurance isnt for those that are just bad at maths or cant afford to replace their stuff.

Perhaps your an arrogant troll.

TheOldHand

Car insurance is first of all a legal requirement and its ok value. I pay 400 a year to avoid millions of euro in liabilities. I pay pet insurance as again I cannot cover potentially hundreds of thousands in vet bills and the cover is reasonable value. I'm a stat man by trade so I can I understand how some people get confused on these issues.

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

Car insurance is first of all a legal requirement and its ok value. I pay 400 a year to avoid millions of euro in liabilities. I pay pet insurance as again I cannot cover potentially hundreds of thousands in vet bills and the cover is reasonable value. I'm a stat man by trade so I can I understand how some people get confused on these issues.

Value is what you percieve it to be.

A stat man would realise that insurance premuims are underwritten on the probability of a claim, meaning that your pet insurance claim probability versus your premiums means you will over the long term probably lose out financially.

But who cares ? Thats the point of insurance, for a relatively small premuim you have the peace of mind to know that you wont end up in a bad situation, should the unthinkable happen.

In financial terms your pet insurance is bad value. It becomes good value if you have to ever make a claim. No different than contents insurance.

but as a stats man you should already realise this.

TheOldHand

You have a very poor understanding of insurance. In your eyes a 100 euro and a 200 euro premium are of equal value. It's about understanding the average risk and reward that you are categorised in and then working out whether you are overpaying or under paying based on your own circumstances.

djimi

TheOldHand wrote: »

Last time I checked it was nearer 200 quid when it should be about 30.

Why pay 25k contents insurance when I have about 5k of contents. The only likely loss is a burglary and that would be about 2k of electronics gone. The chance of a fire destroying everything is probably 1 in 20,000.

Then you'd have an excess and the hassle of claiming. I have tens of thousands in savings so I'd never be stuck. I think it's for people who have no savings and are poor at maths.

€100 to cover the thousands of Euro worth of equipment I have in the house is absolutely nothing as far as Im concerned. It even covers things like laptops if they get broken/stolen when outside the property. Why would I spent €1000 of my saving to replace my laptop when I could spend €100 on a policy that would cover it?

If something were to happen (fire/burglary etc) I stand to lose more than €100 on pretty much every item that would be taken/destroyed, and I have a lot of items that would be taken/destroyed. I have no idea how you dont understand the value of something that you pay so little for.

TheOldHand

Sometimes it's a chore trying to explain the basics.

Make sure you all get payment protection plans with your mortgages. All insurance is a good idea. It can never be pointless or bad value.

djimi

TheOldHand wrote: »

Sometimes it's a chore trying to explain the basics.

Make sure you all get payment protection plans with your mortgages. All insurance is a good idea. It can never be pointless or bad value.

Are you really trying to suggest that a €100 insurance policy to protect up to €25k worth of contents is bad value? Do you live in some sort of dream world where nothing ever gets stolen or broken? Im assuming you have never been the victim of a home invasion, because if it is something that has happened to you in the past there is absolutely no way you would be arguing against content insurance.

TheOldHand

Those are based on the average rental. I have 5k of contents and would love in a property with much lower risk. I'm not on the business of subsidising higher risk policies. The same reason I will never have health insurance in Ireland.

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

You have a very poor understanding of insurance. In your eyes a 100 euro and a 200 euro premium are of equal value. It's about understanding the average risk and reward that you are categorised in and then working out whether you are overpaying or under paying based on your own circumstances.

where did i say they are of equal value. Do you actually read what people post or just go off in wild tangents ?

yes it is about average risk. Like i said a decent stats man would know that the chance of a claim versus the premium means that in financial terms no insurance is of value financially for the average person.

thats why insurnace companies hire statistical analists and have underwriters putting together their premiums.

it only becomes financially valuable if you have to make a claim. The value in insurance is generally from the security of knowing you are covered rather than from an actual claim.

financially you are overpaying for your per cover. How can I say this ? Its because the statictics say so. Believe it or not thats how insurance companies make profit.

Thats not the point however. Your paying for the peace of mind to know that should you need to claim you can.

as for my knowledge of insurance its actually very good. I try and dumb things down for posters like you though so you can try grasp it. Theres not helping some people though.

djimi

TheOldHand wrote: »

Those are based on the average rental. I have 5k of contents and would love in a property with much lower risk. I'm not on the business of subsidising higher risk policies. The same reason I will never have health insurance in Ireland.

If you are happy that your house won't get broken into and are confident that nothing you own will ever break then more power to you. Also it must be great to be the bionic man who will never get sick/injured and require medical attention.

For the rest of us its well worth paying what is a relatively small amount for things like of contents and health insurance, to cover us against eventualities that we could not afford to cover otherwise.

D3PO

TheOldHand wrote: »

I'm not on the business of subsidising higher risk policies.

Sorry to break it to you but if you have car insurance this is exactly what you are doing.

fasttalkerchat

TheOldHand wrote: »

Depends on how much stuff you have. If found that it was incredibly bad value and not worth having.

Me too. I live on the 2nd floor of a 3 story building with controlled access. To burgle me they would have to go to a lot of effort! All of our appliances have a warranty against damage. We don't have a fire or gas or are at risk of floods.

Despite all this, I share a postcode with part of the town centre so insurance is expensive.