Macerator pump systems have become increasingly common in modern properties, particularly in areas where conventional plumbing solutions are less viable. Alongside their growing popularity, adjudicators have seen a rise in disputes involving the repair or replacement of these systems. One recent case stood out as an example of how careful attention to contractor reports can significantly influence the outcome of a claim.
The dispute
The landlord in this case submitted a claim for the cost of replacing a damaged Saniflo pump, which was required during the tenant’s occupancy. According to the landlord, the damage was caused by the tenant’s misuse of the system, specifically through the improper disposal of wipes.
The evidence and the outcome
The timeline of events began when the tenant reported a blockage in the toilet, prompting an emergency call-out by a contractor. Upon inspection, the contractor diagnosed the pump as non-functional and reported that it required replacement. Their report made no reference to user error or a blockage, instead stating that authorisation was needed from the landlord to proceed with the work.
The landlord claimed that the pump needed replacing as a result of the tenant using wipes in the system; however, the eagle eyed among you will have noted that the contractor had diagnosed the unit as needing replacement, without making reference to any tenant fault. In this report there was no mention of a user error or blockage, just that authorisation was needed from the landlord to proceed.
In this instance the adjudicator had not been able to find the tenant responsible for the replacement of the pump and no award was made.
The role of a deposit protection scheme
Using a deposit protection scheme, such as the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, ensures disputes like these are resolved fairly. These schemes safeguard deposits and rely on clear evidence, protecting both landlords and tenants. The adjudicator’s impartiality ensures decisions are based solely on the evidence provided, aligning with the standards of a deposit protection scheme.
So, what are the key points here?
When the tenant reports an issue or damage as required, the onus is then placed on the landlord to establish the cause of this. The contractor’s report, which identified the pump as defective and requiring replacement without misuse noted, was pivotal in determining the outcome of the claim.
This case highlights the potential pitfalls of macerator pump systems in rental properties. These systems are sensitive to misuse, and tenants may not always understand the restrictions on what can be flushed. Best practice sees agents including a guide to proper use within the tenancy agreement, check-in report or indeed the property itself.
It also is worthwhile ensuring that the tenancy agreement clearly sets out the responsibility for unnecessary callout charges.
By following these tips and using a trusted deposit protection scheme like the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, landlords and letting agents can ensure disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly.
If you are interested in further guidance relating to deposit disputes, visit the Help Centre at TDS to browse further guides.
Sandy Bastin, is head of adjudication services at Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS), the only not-for-profit tenancy deposit protection scheme.
