Management office changed the flapper of my unit. After the change, my tenant went to security 2 times advising that sometimes the flapper does not work. 3 weeks after the change, flooding happened in my unit (tenant was out of town for long weekend). Serious damage caused in my unit, the underneath unit and some common area. My tenant received an invoice of $5000 for fixing the problem. My tenant has refused to pay it. If he does not pay it, as the owner, I have to pay it.

I want to fight. And my main problem is to find out what caused the flooding. My tenant said it was because of the improper install of the flapper – it did not close properly. Management office said it was because of the stuck of the bowl and has nothing to do with flapper.

My question is:

1. If the flapper is not installed properly, can it cause flooding?
2. If the bowl is stuck, can it cause flooding?

I am expecting answers, suggestions and ideas. Thank you in advance.



Edited 1 times.

if 1 but not 2 ~ no

if 2 and 1 ~ yes


imo: since the tenant complained about the flapper not 'sealing' and it was not fixed they are not responsible for the resulting flood ~ if they flushed with a 'blocked' bowl and caused an overflow, the water should have STOPPED when the tank refilled ~ with the non-sealing flapper the water simply continued to flow and continued the flood

==============================================

"Measure Twice & Cut Once" - Retired U.A. Local 1 & 638

ANY flooding is caused by a continual water flow AND nowhere for the water to go but on to the floor. A bad fill valve could have overflowed the tank, a leaking flapper in combination with a plugged toilet could also do it. If the toilet were not plugged a leaking flapper would not have caused the flood, and if the toilet WAS plugged, it would not have overflowed if the flapper were working properly. Someone's insurance should cover at least part of the damages.

Just wanted to add that if the tenant had done the work and not reported the issues it might fall onto them, but when the building maintenance or professionals hired by the owner performed the work, it is their mess. If the fill valve was leaking, it should have been addressed at the same time, but it is entirely possible that the chain on the flapper was installed or adjusted incorrectly and caused the tank to leak constantly as well. The fill valve may have been fine, and simply been doing its job. I have seen many toilets that had a 'bad' flapper that simply needed an adjustment, or someone installed it incorrectly with the ring and ears.

A "leaking flapper" by itself, just wastes water, it does not cause a flood.

To: hj (AZ)

Thank you very much for your reply.

So is it 100% true ( I really hope so ) that "A leaking flapper by itself, just wastes water, it does not cause a flood." ?

In other words, flooding can NOT be caused by improper installation of flapper?

Thanks again.

If the flapper had been installed correctly, there wouldn't have been a source of water for the flood; a clogged toilet would have been irrelevant.
If the toilet wasn't clogged, the water would have went down the drain.
Without both events happening simultaneously, there wouldn't have been a flood due to an overflowing toilet; as you admitted, the tenant wasn't even home at the time so proving that they flooded the apartment would be difficult at best. They reported to your security that they believed the toilet wasn't fixed. Twice. Then there was a flood while they were away, and now an owner that let the problem sit for 3 weeks after the repair is attempting to make them pay for the damages.
Look at both sides and see how this will play out. I assume that by the limits of the lease agreement that they weren't to make repairs, and to report problems and they did both. The owner/management is supposed to address the problem and it was reported 2 times after the first attempt and still wasn't fixed. You can't take bits and pieces of the whole and make a case that will hold water. pun intended