Really, you think that the sewer getting plugged 3 times in a year points to the tenants? This is where I strongly disagree. After the initial clog, we discontinued flushing any products down the toilet that may have led to the initial clog, unless you count toilet paper & human waste as clogging inducing products.
The visit from the plumber should have cleared this clog to the street, so if the clog was not cleared completely, then it becomes the issue of the plumber's workmanship because that's what they were hired to do...clear the clog completely.
I believe that a clog that keeps occuring, 3 times in 1 year points to a partially collapsed pipe. When a pipe is partially collapsed and then a plumber runs a snake through it, then it takes time for the pipe to clog again. At this point anything could potentially get hung up on this partial collapse, including toilet paper and as it continues to build up it produces a clog and backs up in the basement.
We continued to only flush human waste and toilet paper down the toilet after the inital clog in October and after the 2nd clog in July, we moved out at the end of August. The 3rd clog occurred 1 month after we moved out and a day after the new owners of the home moved into it. Again, from the end of July to the end of August (1 month) we only flushed human waste and toilet paper, the home sat empty for a month and at the end of September when the new homeowners moved into their new home it backed up again. This either points to poor workmanship by the plumber when he came out in October & July or a collapsed pipe or tree root growth in the pipes, neither of which is our responsibility. For us to have to pay for a plumber to scope the pipe to prove this, is outrageous. And due to the cheapness of our LL, he certainly was not going to pay to have it scoped, he could care less since he was selling the home.
I may just pay for a plumber to come out to the home to scope the pipe just to satisfy my curiousity, if nothing else, as long as the current homeowners will allow me to have it done. Too bad I didn't have it done prior to the court date, not that it would have held up in court either since it could have collapsed after we moved out or perhaps what we flushed down the toilet would have been blamed for the collapse because it became "overloaded".
We thought it was a sure win for us, but boy were we wrong!!
However, if I am able to prove that the pipe is collapsed and/or has tree root growth, and we are not blamed for it, what is the possibility or procedure to have the court reverse its decision? Is the appeals court my only option, or will they not listen to new evidence?
Scott67, if you "don't see a problem with the judge or the legal system and it appears to you that they came to the right decision in this case", then please explain the following:
The LL was also charging us $95 for the replacement of a basement door that our dog destroyed. The LL had told me that he would not charge us for the door instead of pro-rating our rent since the basement was unusable for several months. I failed to get it in writing, so that's my fault. The contractor told us (hearsay) when he replaced the door that it cost only $50. We asked the LL for a receipt when he initially provided us the initial secrity deposit check with the deductions noted. However, he was unable to provide a receipt or a copy of the cancelled check. He simply did not have it. At court, miraculously he produced a receipt indicating that the cost was $130, which is $35 more than his original claim. We argued the legitimacy of the receipt and what else may have been included in this $130 charge, if it was even authentic. The judge granted our LL the entire amount of $130.
At the most our LL should have only received $95 since that what his original claim and because the contractor was not present explain what else was included in the $130 charge. What we do know, but did not argue because we cannot prove it, is that the LL and contractor are friends and he most likely produced a doctored receipt so the LL could bring it to court.
With all of the different price points discussed in this argument, I hardly believe that the judge made the right decision in providing the LL the entire amount of $130. $95 should have been the max, even though we could not prove the mention of the $50 cost that the contractor had told us.

