A B.C. resident and caretaker of a home found themselves in hot water after leaving a tap running, which damaged a copper sink, costing thousands of dollars for a replacement.
According to a decision that came down at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, JL allowed RP, the former caretaker of the home in question, to tour family members around the property when she was out of town.
When JL returned home, she found a hot water tap running, which she said caused permanent damage to the copper sink.
While RP initially agreed to pay for repairs, he later changed his mind, saying no one was responsible. JL said it would cost $3,424.32 to replace the damaged sink.
- You might also like:
- Landlord offered tenants money to clean in failed B.C. rental
- Roommate has locks changed on her in testy B.C. rental dispute
- Bloody fight between roommates over a bike ends in B.C. legal dispute
According to the tribunal’s decision, RP’s son helped build the home.
“In submissions, the respondent refers to the house as ‘award-winning’ and ‘very high-end,'” the decision states.
In September 2023, RP asked for permission to give a tour to some family members he was hosting. That tour took place on Sept. 25. JL returned on Sept. 29, discovering hot water running in the sink in the powder room, “just off of the pool table room.”
The water, which was running for days, led to discolouration and staining of the copper sink.
In January 2024, JL paid $3,399.27 to buy the same sink and to have it installed.
“When she asked the respondent to pay the first invoice, the respondent refused, saying they did not believe they, or their guests, had damaged the sink. The respondent repeated their position in their submissions, saying neither they nor their guests had used the powder room and that their guests were likely not even ‘aware’ of it,” the decision states.
The tribunal made a tough decision, as there was no concrete evidence about who had left the water running.
“However, I am able to make findings of fact by drawing inferences. In doing so, I must make inferences based on evidence, not speculation or conjecture, that reasonably flow from established facts,” the tribunal member overseeing the case stated.
The tribunal also put weight on a November text from RP, in which he initially had agreed to pay for the sink, which the tribunal said was RP acknowledging one of his guests was responsible.
“So, I find the respondent breached their obligation to ensure neither they, nor their guests, damaged the applicant’s house while touring it.”
RP was ordered to pay $3,574.27 within 14 days of the decision.