For clarity, I have included the full email exchange to which the use of the word 'bullish' was used to describe some demands being made - given that we were discussing a goodwill gesture and not compensation, the word was used to describe the bullishness of the demand given that fault was not the landlords, the item is a tenant insurable item, it was a goodwill gesture and that the tenant was proposing to be paid in full for an item that they would then keep and use - The landlord did not think this equitable. Readers can make up their own mind.

There are some gaps to the recollection of events that are missing, so I have summarised below what happened, for which we were really proud of our service levels, unfortunately it was not Sonia's view but we are somewhat concerned by what more could have been expected. For the avoidance of doubt, the unfortunate unplanned event of a pipe leaking, was not and could never be Comfort Lettings' fault which is the unreasonable position we were facing accusations of.

Timeline of events:
1) Emergency voicemails left on Sunday Mid Morning
2) Discussion with tenant re problem mid afternoon, extent of leak, satisfied that leak has stopped. Reported that Emergency Plumber had been called out at tenant cost of £160, stop cock reported as not used effectively and that Electrics now isolated. Tenants already trying to discuss compensation for loss of food items, cost of plumber despite no categorical use of the stop cock switch.
2) Comfort Letting's staff and Qualified Contractor attend early evening (6pm ish). All excess water removed from lounge laminate floor and kitchen. Sofas soaked through, plan made to use hot seasonal weather over coming days to get these dried out.
3) By 8pm, the source of the leak was found (between floors, ceiling chopped out to find), pipe fixed, water restored and Electrics declared safe except the lounge light circuit was left off just in case (summer daylight hours). First floor x2 bedrooms and bathroom unaffected, Second floor x2 bedrooms and bathroom unaffected and kitchen mopped up and cleaned up and in full working order. The sofas were too wet to use for a period of 3 days or so whilst they were dried - Comfort Lettings staff attended to put them out in the morning, cover in evening and took full responsibility for drying these items and getting them back in situ.
4) Cleaner sent in to fully clean bottom floor from impact from water.
5) After about a week the ceiling was restored, holes patched up.
6) The Landlord paid the full £160 Emergency Plumber call out fee to the tenant (despite there being a working stop cock switch evident on the day of the leak) and offered £30 towards the spoilt packaging of a perfume bottle that was initially stated to be £60 but later declared to be £47.60. Note, the tenant still has the quiet enjoyment of this perfume, and 60% of its initial cost was deemed a generous offer by the landlord for something that should ultimately be an insurable item by the tenant.

Nb. The tenants were very strict about times for contractor visitations, these were adhered to in full despite making a resolution to the problem very tricky to manage - this was accepted given that it was exam season for these tenants, so we pulled out all the stops to get this remedial work completed (mostly all on Sunday, same day) with their agreement and to their timings.

Email 1 from Sonia a number of weeks after the event:

"Dear Phil,

Would like to speak to you regarding the damaged product from the house flooding that cost £47.60.

If pictures of the receipt and damaged box and contents are needed I will be more than happy to send them across as evidence.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Sonia"

Email reply (Landlord had offered a goodwill payment of £30 for the spoilt packaging to the Perfume which could now not be sent back for a refund - no photos of receipt or damage have ever been provided but the landlord made the goodwill gesture anyway (note the landlord made the gesture, not Comfort Lettings, given that we are an intermediary in such circumstances):

"Hello Sonia
The landlord has offered you a goodwill payment.
I am unsure what your question may be in relation to this.
Please can you confirm?
Please do send photos.
Regards
Phil"

Further reply from Sonia (The offer was £30 for the inconvenience, for a perfume that cost either £47.60 or £60 - we never established which was the true value as the promised receipts or photos never arrived):

"Thanks for getting back to me.
Just confirming I would get face value for my damaged item, as I know before it was only (around) half of what I had actually paid.
Thanks,
Sonia

Reply by Phil:

"Hello Sonia
Please do send the photos as well and I can ask the landlord.

Please bear in mind, you've been offered a goodwill gesture. You are now making demands on a goodwill gesture - the kind of demands you would make of your own contents insurance. It's rather bullish that you might ask for face value given that

a) The landlord has no liability for the items as it is a tenant insurable event - but he has offered a goodwill gesture anyway which was without question never required of him
b) You still have the item, which of course has a value even without the packaging...

I presume your photos show that the cellophane wrapper was still on the item and therefore was in a condition that would have been accepted under a returns policy?

Thanks."

Reply from Sonia:

"Hello Phill,

I am quite surprised/shocked with your response and especially the term you have used to describe a reasonable demand of mine to be "bullish" especially from a "premium" letting agent.

A pipe had burst a day before my first exam, something that was not my fault but a plumbing issue that should have never happened. To remind you, it had left us with no electricity for most of the day on Sunday, and no electricity downstairs for 2/3 days, again during my final exams. We were not offered accommodation and so continued to stay in quite poor living conditions. For us to continue to pay the full price for the nights we stayed during that time, to me, is quite "bullish".

My father, a Landlord of many properties, was quite ashamed in the conditions I was staying and the lack of effort to accommodate us during that time. He requested we should call the council and refuse to pay our last months rent.

For me now to ask for a simple request to refund me the price of a product that had been ruined due to a plumbing issue, would in hindsight, sound quite reasonable in comparison. Do you not think?

Before presuming, the condition was definitely not in a condition to be accepted for a refund. I even made sure of this by calling the shop I bought it from, because of course I did not want to lose my money.

Photos will be sent very soon to you.

Best Regards,
Sonia"

Reply by Phil and then discover this disappointing review:

"Hello Sonia

Your email is disappointing, in terms of your recollection and summary of events. It is embellished in terms of the impact. It was most definitely a distressing event for you, but you seem to be wanting to point the finger at someone rather than accept the fact that something happened that was out of any individual's control.

I have no comment in terms what we could have done differently or better given the unplanned event.

Whilst the house is in your possession it is of course your duty to look after it in a Tenant like Manner, which your father will be well aware of.

I was disappointed to see that no effort had been made to clear up any water and look after the property and protect the flooring from water damage. I personally arrived at your house the same day and took care of this for you and on your behalf - it is not a landlords responsibility to take care of everything and you must make a reasonable effort and take reasonable steps to look after the building when you have take a Legal Interest in the Title of the property. Given that it was exam season I was content to give the benefit of the doubt and arranged things to be done speedily and courteously without mention of your oversight re the best and most appropriate actions in such an event.

I must feedback, the time demands of when allowing access were very restrictive and yet I negotiated with contractors to work to your strict visitation timetables. It was not easy..

I would advise your father to never give that advice - there is no right to withhold rent payments in such circumstances. The law is very clear on this point.

I would have been very glad for the Council to have been rung or even to be called. Our actions were exemplary unless you can explain otherwise?

The question I would ask is this: If you owned the property yourselves, could you have feasible resolved things any quicker? I honestly believe we did all we could for you and the team did a great job for you.

I obliged to requests to also write a letter to assist with helping telling the university about the event - even if your original drafting was embellishing the facts of the events. I could of course just refused to sign it, but instead I redrafted it and sent it for you all to use.

In terms of my comment about bullishness, it's not designed to be rude - it is merely a remark that many other landlords would simply state that it is your possession and your insurance should cover it. In your case, the landlord was willing to make a 60% contribution or so for this item as a goodwill gesture - this is not compensation and nor should it be confused as such. This was a generous offer given that a pipe bursting like that is neither your fault or the landlords, it is a very unfortunate event, and something for which landlords and tenants should hold insurance to protect their assets from such events.

Judgments should be made on how people react to situations that are in their control. To that extent I'm really proud of everyone here and our contractors for everything that was done for you. I'm proud that the landlord offered to cover the cost of the emergency plumber even though the supporting recollections changed and at first we were told a stop cock wasn't used and the story moved on to say it failed to work - yet it was working on our visit to the property. Gaps in the story of events were overlooked and the landlord paid for a call out that was technically not required - because he understood that your intentions were good and he's a very fair landlord.

I must contest your assertion that you had poor living conditions. The facts are that one room was impacted seriously and this involved a period of days without lighting to that room (when the daylight hours were long) and days of us personally visiting to dry out sofas using the warm outside air. The top two floors and kitchen were arguably unaffected, given that they were declared in full safe working order within 12 hours of the incident. I'm troubled by your definition of reasonable and ‘ashamed in the conditions' and ‘lack of effort to accommodate'. If ever I have felt that my own personal efforts on a Sunday night that I usually spend with my three young children is undervalued then it is with your recollection and lack of appreciation for the special efforts made for you.

A house mate was in attendance after one of our contractors and I had cleared things up and made sure things were safe by early evening on Sunday. They were pleased that the house was safe and made an immediate phone call informing the house that everything other than the lounge was is a 100% useable condition. There was never any feedback about a lack of help re accommodation - in fact there was nothing but thanks at the time. Perhaps your recollection is of your time incurred in deciding to vacate the house of your own accord and leave the water all over the floor. Your decision meant you felt put out, and that is really nothing to do with how we accommodated you or helped you.

There was also at the time a demand for compensation of wasted food items. Perhaps it was this type of spurious claim culture that has tempered the goodwill nature of the landlord to only offer you £190 of the possible £207.60 of losses, all as a goodwill gesture despite having reasonable cause to argue to pay nothing. The landlord had felt he'd made a generous offer, especially given the fact that you'd ultimately still be in possession of an item with an intrinsic value. To that extent, if the item has zero value to you, please send it to us and we will reimburse you the full face value.

Regards
Phil"