Tenant evicted from Cape Town flat for flushing toilet 22 times in one day

Slootvreter

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
29,686
Absolutely illegal.

I am wondering how can the landlord have nothing better to do during a full day than counting how many times the tenants flush.

The meter does the counting, not the landlord. But yes, you can't even evict someone for non payment, so this can't be legal.
 

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
57,641
And he should pass down this responsibility to his tenant by asking him to pay the fine he had to pay.

If he didn't respect the lease in any way, and terminated it without the consent of the tenant for the motive of using too much water, he will be held responsible.

If the tenant and the landlord both agreed to terminate the lease, then there would be no issues.

She agree to the lease with that stipulation, she terminated the lease by not keeping to the condition...
 

Slootvreter

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
29,686
Better solution from the landlord would have been a water saving cistern and even better still the one with two flushers for different purposes.

As someone with a bog-related disease I can tell you the bucket system isn't always going to do the job and you need the vacuum action of the real flush in many cases.

Also was it 22 times each and every day? Or 22 times at a peak because although quite high that's not so insane really if she has a real problem.

The problem with using too little water for flushing away anything else than piss, is that it can block the pipes.
 

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
41,512
The problem with using too little water for flushing away anything else than piss, is that it can block the pipes.

Precisely.

But there are also old fashioned cisterns and modern ones that use much less water.

Also you can do simple things like putting 500ml cool drink bottles in there without running too much risk of clogging.
 

AstroTurf

Lucky Shot
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
28,558
Precisely.

But there are also old fashioned cisterns and modern ones that use much less water.

Also you can do simple things like putting 500ml cool drink bottles in there without running too much risk of clogging.

First thing I did when I moved into my current house around 12 years ago is put a couple of bricks and rocks into the cistern. I also bent the float's copper arm thing so the float is way down in the water. One of those very old toilets that use around 20l a flush, it now uses around 10 for a full flush.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,122
She agree to the lease with that stipulation, she terminated the lease by not keeping to the condition...

The landlord said his rental agreements state that water allowances are recommended by the City of Cape Town. Tenants are also advised of the water restrictions when they move in.

Recommended and advised does not equal to breach.

Even if it was a breach, there would be a notice period (generally 30 days) which doesn't seem to have been respected.
 

Ninja'd

A Djinn
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
50,129
Recommended and advised does not equal to breach.

Even if it was a breach, there would be a notice period (generally 30 days) which doesn't seem to have been respected.

Yeah, according EMAM's post she got kicked out immediately.
 

cpu.

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
5,131
So my bet is that if she wants, she can get reinstated, or otherwise damages from the landlord.
I'll rather wait for a court to decide whether this is legal or not. If she used a lot of water I side with the landlord, but that is my opinion.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,122
I'll rather wait for a court to decide whether this is legal or not. If she used a lot of water I side with the landlord, but that is my opinion.

A notice period still applies, you can’t - without a court order - kick out somebody overnight for any reason whatsoever, even if she was performing satanic ritual killing babies in the flat.

It’s contracts law 101.
 

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
57,641
A notice period still applies, you can’t - without a court order - kick out somebody overnight for any reason whatsoever, even if she was performing satanic ritual killing babies in the flat.

It’s contracts law 101.

Given SA news reporting standards he might well have, but who cares about such details in new SA...
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
35,043
A notice period still applies, you can’t - without a court order - kick out somebody overnight for any reason whatsoever, even if she was performing satanic ritual killing babies in the flat.

It’s contracts law 101.

Like I said if she left after being asked that's her mistake. Unless he physically evicted her without a court order, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,122
Like I said if she left after being asked that's her mistake. Unless he physically evicted her without a court order, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If he terminated the lease unilaterally, even if she left, she has recourses.

If she signed a paper agreeing to terminate the lease with immediate effect, then the landlord is covered.

If he evicted her, then he has a big problem to deal with.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
35,043
If he terminated the lease unilaterally, even if she left, she has recourses.

If she signed a paper agreeing to terminate the lease with immediate effect, then the landlord is covered.

If he evicted her, then he has a big problem to deal with.

If she left of her own accord that's an implicit agreement, so unless he physically evicted her he's covered. The article cites him as saying he asked her to leave. It's possible that the article neglects to mention that he through her out, but whats the point in speculating?
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,122
If she left of her own accord that's an implicit agreement, so unless he physically evicted her he's covered. The article cites him as saying he asked her to leave. It's possible that the article neglects to mention that he through her out, but whats the point in speculating?

There are no implicit agreements where the relationship between the parties is flawed (the landlord is considered as more powerful than the landlord who is considered as a protected party).

The Rental Housing Act protects tenants from all ambiguities, the onus is on the landlord and without signed paper, sms, email where the tenant states that he accepts to terminate the lease immediately, the landlord has no recourse.

Same concept than when there is no inspection when you move into a place, the landlord cannot claim any damage without a signed entrance inspection.

So no, even if he did not physically evicted her, he is not fine. If he has nothing in writing from her, he is not fine.
 
Top