Landlord charging tennents for repairs to shower (crack)

[manawelian]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

Our landlord is charging my self and my two roomates for repairs made to a shower that was installed two years ago when we moved in.

The floor of the shower began cracking a month before we moved out.
I am not sure why , but I assume it was either due to general ware and tear, or most likely poor installation.

My question is , is this legal for him to charge his tennets for the repair, if we notified him about the problem prior to moving out and once we noticied it was developing.


For anyone who responds that we are at faul, please explain, what we could have done differently to cause this crack to not occur, all we ever did was use it to shower, there was never ever anything else going on...also the bill was for 1700$ to repair the crack , is there any was to verify if this an accurate amount to bill to fix this?

Thank you,

 

[xylene]

If your landlord has evidence you caused the crack, then he has a case.

I tend to agree with you.

It is not enough that you were in possession of the unit and used it for you to be liable.

 

[xylene]

Ask for a reciept. Call the person that did the work. Ask his opinion on what could have caused it. Try to get something in writing.

And a receipt would prove what?

 

[johnd]

I disagree w/ the above member: you are at fault, unless you can prove faulty workmanship caused the crack. Tile (whether glass, ceramic, granite, marble, terra cotta or porcelain) is a brittle product...prone to chipping or cracking if a heavy object is dropped on it. Properly taken care of, a well-laid floor will last many lifetimes.

 

[xylene]

I disagree w/ the above member: you are at fault, unless you can prove faulty workmanship caused the crack.

The burden of proof is on the landlord, the one who is billing the tenants for the repair, and who would have to sue the tenants if they didn't pay.

The tenants, or defendants, have no burden of proof to meet.

The fact that the shower has a crack it is is not enough. The landlord has to prove it was cracked by the tenants, AND that the cause of the crack was something outside of the use rights they had as leaseholders. That is ordinary wear and tear...

IE, the fact the shower didn't life up to its design life doesn't mean it is not ordinary wear and tear.

If their is an underlying problem, that further worsens the landlords position.

So unless the landlord has some credible evidence the tenants were clumsy with a shot put or something like that, or any theory on how the tenants damaged the shower...

 

[xylene]

I disagree w/ the above member: you are at fault, unless you can prove faulty workmanship caused the crack.

The burden of proof is on the landlord, the one who is billing the tenants for the repair, and who would have to sue the tenants if they didn't pay.

The tenants, or defendants, have no burden of proof to meet.

The fact that the shower has a crack it is is not enough. The landlord has to prove it was cracked by the tenants, AND that the cause of the crack was something outside of the use rights they had as leaseholders. That is ordinary wear and tear...

IE, the fact the shower didn't life up to its design life doesn't mean it is not ordinary wear and tear.

If their is an underlying problem, that further worsens the landlords position.

So unless the landlord has some credible evidence the tenants were clumsy with a shot put or something like that, or any theory on how the tenants damaged the shower...
beacuse it isn't enough that they used the shower and it cracked for them to be liable.