Damage after toilet blockage in rental property

Questioner

In my former rental home, both toilets were blocked. The landlord then had a company come to fix it. When the technician unblocked one of the toilets, a short circuit occurred because a sanibroyeur appeared to be built in behind the toilet. The final repair was very complicated, partly because the sanibroyeur had been tiled away behind a wall that had to be broken open and eventually re-tiled. In addition, hairs were found in the sanibroyeur itself and it had to be replaced. The total cost of repairing this has risen to almost €4000, for which the landlord holds me (and my ex-girlfriend with whom I lived there) responsible. He has filed this with his building insurer and it is still pending, but he has already indicated that at least the costs of replacing the sanibroyeur itself are not covered, because it would have broken due to incorrect use (flushing hair down the toilet). I myself believe that I/we are not responsible for the costs, but I am not sure if I see this correctly. My reasoning: 1) We reported the blockage to the landlord almost immediately when we had it. The blockage was found in both the toilet with the sanibroyeur and the toilet without it and also at our neighbors and is therefore clearly not a direct result of a problem with the sanibroyeur, but a structural problem in the apartment and/or the apartment complex 2) A short circuit occurred when the technician attempted to unclog the toilet. Before this, there was no indication that there was any problem with the sanibroyeur (as explained above, the blockage is not an indication of a problem with the sanibroyeur). 3) The sanibroyeur was concealed behind the bathroom tiling in such a way that the fitter could not have known it was there. A large part of the costs incurred are related to the breaking up and rebuilding of the tiling. 4) The installer also found poor/uninsulated/unsecured cabling of the sanibroyeur behind the wall tiles. 5) Flushing small amounts of hair down the toilet is part of normal everyday toilet use. By this I mean the occasional flushing of hair from a hairbrush or shower drain. 6) We as tenants did not know that there was a sanitizer; in fact, we did not even know that such a device existed. 7) Although we could hear when flushing that there must be some kind of pump or something near the toilet, this is not an indication for someone who does not know anything about this and has never heard of a sanibroyeur that the toilet should be used differently than a normal toilet. 8) We were not informed in advance that this toilet had a different-than-normal use. 9) The landlord says that he had indeed warned us in advance that it was “a special toilet [sic]” and that this would also be evident from a sign mounted next to the toilet stating that “girly things” should not be flushed down the toilet. 10) Since not flushing tampons/sanitary towels/etc. down the toilet is part of normal toilet use, in my opinion point 9 is not a sufficient indication that hair should not be flushed down the toilet. In addition, the repair took +/- 6 months and during all this time there was one toilet less in the house. The long duration is largely because the installation company kept promising to call back to make an appointment but this never happened. Almost all contact with this company was made by me and not by the landlord (who in my opinion is actually responsible for this). I wonder if the fact that there was a defect in the house for such a long time and/or that it was not the landlord but I who had to arrange everything with the installers has any influence on this dispute.

Lawyer

I think your points are valid, your landlord should have warned you about the special use of the toilet. He now does that with a sign that generally prohibits flushing tissues and sanitary towels etc. You can also reduce the rent due to the defect that has arisen. Please contact me if the insurer appeals to you? You can send more information to info@rechtinjestad.nl without any obligation.

Questioner

Thanks for the response. I will wait and see what the insurance company says about this, but I do wonder what a reasonable period is for this. I moved 4 months ago (mid-August) and around that time this claim was filed with the insurance company by the landlord. In the meantime my ex-landlord is still on my deposit. Furthermore, I accidentally paid rent for the entire month of August, despite having written confirmation from the landlord that I could cancel halfway through the month and also only have to pay half a month's rent for August. I have asked him several times (in writing) to pay me back that half month, but he refuses with the argument that the deposit will not be sufficient to settle the outstanding bills (especially the one mentioned above). Is he within his rights to hold this money? If not, is there anything I can do about this?

Lawyer

No, because that is rent money and does not serve as a deposit. I could write to him to refund that part plus the deposit, since it is now clear in advance that you cannot be blamed for the blockage.