My daughter’s friend dropped a small compact in the home my daughter and hear 2 friends rent. A visiting friend told my daughter that she dropped a compact into their toilet, and the toilet did stop working. My daughter told the landlord, and my daughter and housemates agreed to pay the plumber. However, the plumber found no compact, or any other obstruction, inside the toilet (he removed the toilet and looked). But the toilet still doesn’t work. The plumber believes, however, that the problem is with the toilet, which is older. He said the flow isn’t right–and he said that the toilet should be replaced with a newer, ‘fast flush’ (I think that’s what he called it) toilet. My daughter’s willing to pay the plumber the cost of installing a new toilet, but I don’t see why she should have to. She’s also afraid the landlord will make her purchase the toilet itself– but this sounds like a maintenance problem to me. After all, there’s no compact in the toilet now, and everyone says a compact is too small to block the pipes–and again, the plumber feels it’s the toilet itself that’s problem. Should my daughter have to pay the plumber to put a new toilet in? Yahoo’s computer must have glitched–it turned my first paragraph into babble I didn’t write. Thanks, everyone–tomorrow I’ll re-post the question after reviewing my daughter’s email–there was more to what the plumber said than I’ve mentioned. SEE NEW POSTING–THANKS. After speaking to others on the web, I found the answer. If the plumber is stating that the replacement is not because of tenant damage, then they CANNOT charge her. She needs to get a statement from the plumber stating that she (and friends) did not cause it to be replaced. If they try to force her to purchase it, then she can take them to court.
Watch more How to Make Plumbing Repairs videos: Learn how to fix a clogged . . .