# Disaster! Thoughts and advice appreciated.



## Sargasso

I had a rough weekend as far as fishkeeping was concerned.

One of my 4" Synodontis njassae died, and I flushed it down the toilet. The next day, I get a call from the neighbors downstairs, asking if I've spilled anything, because their ceiling is leaking. I hadn't of course, but I called a plumber to look into the pipes. The building that I rent from has spent a lot of money fixing pipes in recent years, so it made sense to call them to see what was wrong.

Turns out that the catfish that I flushed somehow clogged the drain, and that this caused the pipes to leak by breaking the wax seal in the toilet. Now the property managment company I rent from is trying to make me pay $1100 in damages!

Sounds like I may be forced to get out of the hobby to pay for this mess. I should be able to break even, but man, what a damn shame!

Has anyone dealt with similar circumstances? Lawyers? Plumbers? Opinions?


----------



## Zeron

You're probably not going to have any choice but to pay for it. If you have tenant's insurance you may be able to make a claim against that.


----------



## Sargasso

I really wouldn't expect the gasket to leak though... I can see if it overflowed and caused damage, but should a plugged toilet really cause the pipes to leak, and is that my responsibility?


----------



## Holyarmor

Zeron said:


> You're probably not going to have any choice but to pay for it. If you have tenant's insurance you may be able to make a claim against that.


+1 A big lesson to learn and thank you for sharing with us.
I really do not see you have any other choices but to PAY. This is the same way for homeowners to pay for their sewage backup or plugged drained pipe.

In your situation, your neighbors know about your fish hobby as well as your admittance of the dead catfish inside the pipe are solid evidence against you.

Yes, your house insurance may be able to help you if you have coverage.


----------



## davefrombc

A 4" syno plugged a drain?.. Something wrong with that.. Drains for toilets are a lot larger than that. Even if it managed to jam in there sideways , there was a lot more than a syno caused the plugged drain .
If the fish was ball shaped , maybe , but then it wouldn't have gone past the gooseneck in the toilet bowl.


----------



## Acipenser

Tough lesson to learn, very sorry ! Never ever flush a fish bigger than a neon !


----------



## Sargasso

davefrombc said:


> A 4" syno plugged a drain?.. Something wrong with that.. Drains for toilets are a lot larger than that. Even if it managed to jam in there sideways , there was a lot more than a syno caused the plugged drain .
> If the fish was ball shaped , maybe , but then it wouldn't have gone past the gooseneck in the toilet bowl.


That's my stance as well... It really shouldn't have plugged the drain.

Definitely a lesson learned, but I question whether there is another factor here.


----------



## davej

Midnight move might prove to be cheaper????


----------



## Sargasso

Well, I hope there's someone in the market for a sweet 130 gallon acrylic cichlid setup. I'm going to have to sell to pay for this if that's the only option.

Shucks!


----------



## tony1928

I can't see a 4" catfish being able to clog up a drain enough to cause the plumbing failure. I suspect that they are just trying to make you pay for something given that they have some evidence that allows them to point the finger. The fish may have contributed to the backup but likely the drain may have been well on its way to being clogged anyway or that the old plumbing was already defective and just waiting to fail. Like others have said though, you may not have a choice but to pay. Good luck though, hopefully you can get out of it or at least get them to split it with you.


----------



## Johnnyfishtanks

did they find a fish in the pipes . 
our did you tell them you flushed a fish ?????


----------



## Aquaman

the wax gasket blew ???? I seriously doubt if it was caused by your fish. Hear me out.
The gasket is between the toilet and the floor drain. before that gasket would fail ( provided its in good shape ...) the water would back up into the toilet onto the floor . The smallest part of the sewer drain from your toilet would be in the goose neck within the toilet its self. if it gets past that it should of been home free. ( bigger chance of the thing being old ,or new one not seated properly or not tightened corectly.....are they pretty big people in the unit with the toilet problem ?....ever been in a house where the toilet rocks ? )
Regardless ...if they are pointing the finger at you you have not much choice but to pay..suck but your pretty much stuck. 
Try calling a few plumbers and describe the situation ...see if they agree with the wax joint failing, due to that particular chain of events.
Personally I think they are full of beans...does not even come close to being possible. 
I am not a plumber.....But I reason things out pretty well...That one says STINK all over it.
Hopefully a plumber will post ....I would really like to hear one explain that one to me 

Unless they are not meant to hold pressure, but that would just be silly.


----------



## eternity302

Ehh... a 4" catfish did all that? How's that even possible at all?
im sure we've taken a....... larger than 4".. how does that not clog the pipe?


----------



## Kitsune

I agree that a 4" catfish plugging the drain is a bit odd. The most likely place to get caught would be in the P-trap (similar to the U shaped thing under your sink), or in the toilet like Aquaman said. Do you know if that's where it leaked?

Either way, I agree that the toilet should have backed up before it broke the pipe. A plumbing pipe does not break that easily (unless you were reefing on it with a plugged pipe with a toilet plunger).

I would call the Residential Tenancy Branch (Residential Tenancy Branch : Government of British Columbia) and see what your rights are for damage. Under the first page of the Landlord & Tenant - Responsibility for Residential Premises document (http://www.rto.gov.bc.ca/documents/GL01.pdf) it says that you are responsible for damage caused deliberately or by neglect. "The tenant is not responsible for reasonable wear and tear to the rental unit or site (the premises)".

The argument you would have to make is that flushing a fish down the toilet is not negligent (i.e. everyone does it), and that a fish clogging the drain DOES NOT CAUSE a pipe to break. Especially if the building was replacing its plumbing in recent years, it means that the pipes are old. If the pipe you broke is the 'old' pipe, than its reasonable to argue that the pipe was already damaged and needed to be repaired anyway.

If worse comes to worse you can go to the Residential Tenancy Branch, and ask for a dispute resolution. They may rule in your favour. But make sure you document EVERYTHING. The person with the most documents win in a lot of cases. This means write down EVERYTHING. Everything that you talked to with the land lord , find the plumber and find out what the damage was, and what he thinks caused it. Get photos of the damage if you can (i guess its already repaired), find all the repairs the building has been doing in the past, find the fish (seriously... the argument might come down to "was that fish reasonably able to cause the pipe to plug?") etc...


----------



## TCR

Dude.. that fish could not have been bigger then a good sized turd....

ask if your allowed to deficate in the toilet or would you have to pay 1100 for that too.

you could claim you swallowed the fish whole and that is how it came out lol

seems extreamly unreasonable myself and i would cause a stink over it.. squeeky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## Kitsune

Actually now that I think about it see if you can find the fish. If you get it back, freeze it. I know this sounds gross, but you might need to argue this point if it comes down to an arbitration.

Oh yeah, and find out why it cost $1100. That's VERY pricey for a fix like that. Get the plumber's bill if you can too.


----------



## Sargasso

Thanks for the advice and encouragement.

I really can't believe how they're handling all of this. I'm bracing to sell my fish and tank setup to pay for it.

The fish was actually in the pipe, along with a bunch of other standard debris (paper etc). The contractor who came to fix it was the property management company's main guy, no surprise that he's trying to blame me on his main employer's behalf. The fish made it all the way through toilet, I'd think that if it was a matter of size that it would have plugged somewhere in the ceramic toilet bowl instead of the downpipe.

No water whatsoever leaked onto my bathroom floor, it all leaked underneath the floor. The contractor went so far as to tell me that the wax gasket isn't supposed to be a seal, and that there "is no seal".


----------



## Sargasso

I have the fish, frozen.

It cost $134 for the plumbers, and $1000 to fix the ceiling down below.

My argument is that even if the fish did clog the toilet, I shouldn't have to pay for the damage caused by the leaky pipes.


----------



## user_error

Total BS, I agree the 4" should not have clogged the pipes. I am not a lawyer or plumber but I would fight this tooth and nail if I were you... It's the principle of it

Kitsune's suggestion seems to be very good and I would pursue the "deliberately or by neglect" angle as you did not do this deliberately and the neglect is mostly on the landlords side... Seems very recent so you may have luck in documenting your side, unfortunately I'd imagine that corrective steps have already been taken and the 'evidence', while circumstantial, does allow them to try and pin it on you.

Best of luck resolving this dispute, hope it turns out in your favor


----------



## Aquaman

TCR said:


> Dude.. that fish could not have been bigger then a good sized turd....
> 
> ask if your allowed to deficate in the toilet or would you have to pay 1100 for that too.
> 
> you could claim you swallowed the fish whole and that is how it came out lol
> 
> seems extreamly unreasonable myself and i would cause a stink over it.. squeeky wheel gets the grease.


...LOL........Atta girl dont be shy 
And to think I hesitated refering to a triple coiller ....though I really wanted to ...LOL priceless
Thanks TCR


----------



## Kitsune

Sargasso said:


> I have the fish, frozen.
> 
> It cost $134 for the plumbers, and $1000 to fix the ceiling down below.
> 
> My argument is that even if the fish did clog the toilet, I shouldn't have to pay for the damage caused by the leaky pipes.


I'm glad you kept the fish.

Here's what I suggest you do, if you plan to dispute this (since that is a pretty hefty bill):

- Write down the time line of everything (when you flushed the fish, when your neighbour saw the leak and complained, the number of times you flushed the toilet in between, etc)
- find a plumber (make sure they have their ticket) who is willing to write down a quite 1 page memo of the probability of a fish that size clogging the plumbing (after the toilet), and breaking a seal 
- Find out if the piping that broke is old or new (you were saying that they are in the process of replacing the plumbing in the building?)
- Call the residential tenancy branch and ask what you should do to proceed if it comes down to a dispute

Good luck


----------



## eternity302

Take it to small claims! Even if that won't help establish a good relationship with the property manager, it's the principle! Do not take the blame~


----------



## Sargasso

This is the seal in question. I'm no plumber, but it's obvious to me that it only creates a partial seal, and that it is rough condition. It's easy to see how any water could leak through the tile floor when there is not so much as a drop of sealant present. I think that landlord "neglect" is the case I'll be making here.

By the way, this is the 3" pipe that the syno was stuck in.

Does anyone know a good plumber for the job?


----------



## TCR

Aquaman said:


> ...LOL........Atta girl dont be shy
> And to think I hesitated refering to a triple coiller ....though I really wanted to ...LOL priceless
> Thanks TCR


LOL... well its true!!!
if a fish does that what happends if u had a high protein day?

All i can say id good luck and thats bull crap to pin it on you... I would not give up.. and perhaps it was the additional paper and crap was contributing to the clogged fish

good luck man and fight this bs!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 2wheelsx2

Unfortunately, you cannot compare feces to fish, since your feces do not have whole pieces of bone in it.

However, I do agree with the poster that it shouldn't have caused a leak, but instead should have backed up the pipe. It's not like that pipe is pressurized. The seal was probably already leaking, but the fish was the straw the broke the camel's back, or the fish that broke the toilet (sorry, couldn't resist).


----------



## Sargasso

2wheelsx2 said:


> However, I do agree with the poster that it shouldn't have caused a leak, but instead should have backed up the pipe. It's not like that pipe is pressurized. The seal was probably already leaking, but the fish was the straw the broke the camel's back, or the fish that broke the toilet (sorry, couldn't resist).


My sentiments exactly!

I don't think that I should be on the hook for the water damage. If this toilet was in proper working order, there'd be no water damage, just a plugged drain.


----------



## big_bubba_B

there is no way a plugged drain can make a wax seal leake there just using that aginst u so they dont have to pay for it . but yes last thing u should have said is that u flushed ur fish but 4 incher will not plug a toilet drain .


----------



## TomC

Phone the provincial rentalsman an ask them.


----------



## Aquaman

Sargasso said:


> Thanks for the advice and encouragement.
> 
> I really can't believe how they're handling all of this. I'm bracing to sell my fish and tank setup to pay for it.
> 
> The fish was actually in the pipe, along with a bunch of other standard debris (paper etc). The contractor who came to fix it was the property management company's main guy, no surprise that he's trying to blame me on his main employer's behalf. The fish made it all the way through toilet, I'd think that if it was a matter of size that it would have plugged somewhere in the ceramic toilet bowl instead of the downpipe.
> 
> No water whatsoever leaked onto my bathroom floor, it all leaked underneath the floor. The contractor went so far as to tell me that the wax gasket isn't supposed to be a seal, and that there "is no seal".


So was the paper down river  from the fish ? if so then the paper was restricting the flow to begin with ..no doubt that the fish alone could do that.How much of the opening was closed off ?
Was there any issues with the operation of the toilet before or when you flushed it ? ( ie. slow working )
Sounds like they are passing the buck onto you. For a problem that was going to happen anyways ....fish or not....
Most likly the seal failed due to other reasons....


----------



## donjuan_corn

TCR said:


> Dude.. that fish could not have been bigger then a good sized turd....
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> hahahah, I was going to say after eating a whole large pizza, i'm sure i've done way worst damage than 4" LOL!!


----------



## summit

wow a 4" turd? really? you must be talking lengthwise here, a 4" diameter turd is like passing a 2L coke bottle, seriously, if your doing those go see a doctor!  All I can think of is Southpark/U2 episode now

As for the OP, I would first talk to a plumber get their qualified opinion on whether a seal can go from a blocked pipe. Then you have some leverage to throw back at the property manager if necessary as it does sound BS.

It sounds to me like the fish caused the backup, which you should be responsible for ($125 plumbing bill) but the leak was caused by a worn seal making the toilet back up incorrectly, not your fish, which is the buildings responsibility, just my opinion.


----------



## roadrunner

Hi, I hope you can get this sorted without paying the whole bill. I agree with summit. You should be only responsible for the plumbing bill. To me it's seems they looking for easy way to get out of it and send you the bill. If I was you, I would fight it. Take it to small court or something. Check the tenancy act or call them. You have more rights than landlords do, so don't give up! Wish you the bets!


----------



## flannel

I've replaced my fair share of toilets at work and that wax seal is in pretty rough shape, assuming none stuck to the toilet side, that is. There is no logical way that you can be held responsible if it indeed leaked out the wax seal between the layers of flooring, that is just an OLD seal whose time was up, nothing sinister about it. Not your fault, it's an ongoing maintenance issue. stuff gets old and wears out. Get thee some paperwork started for arbitration. Or at the very least, tell your landlord you are going to go that route and see if they give a little, if not, follow through with it. Then make sure you send every piece of paper back and forth with them by registered mail so they can't say they didn't get it. They are just trying to put the screws to you. Maybe make a bit of a concession by offering to pay for clearing the clog, if that will sway them somewhat but don't give them one penny more unless arbitration orders you to. I'll tell ya from personal experience, I've got teenage boys who can clog our ancient toilet like no tomorrow and that absolutely, positively does NOT ruin your wax seal like that! I hate landlords like that who try to bend their tenants over a barrel for stuff like this. It makes the good ones look bad too. grrrr.


----------



## e8c8k6ic

A clogged pipe definitely won't and can't blow a toilet gasket seal. However, a defective seal could certainly allow water to sip downstairs to your neighbor's place if your 4" catfish clogged the trap in your toilet allowing water overflowing the toilet bowl ( which apparently wasn't the case).

So I can't see why I would have to pay the bill for something I wasn't negligent and causal in.


----------



## gklaw

Sargasso said:


> This is the seal in question. I'm no plumber, but it's obvious to me that it only creates a partial seal, and that it is rough condition. It's easy to see how any water could leak through the tile floor when there is not so much as a drop of sealant present. I think that landlord "neglect" is the case I'll be making here.
> 
> By the way, this is the 3" pipe that the syno was stuck in.
> 
> Does anyone know a good plumber for the job?


I am an engineer and handy man. I also built houses and renov for a few years. Yes you should not have flushed the fish that large, or even half the size, down the drain.

However, the wax absolutely provide the seal.

From the picture, it looks like whoever did the tile raised the toilet up so the wax was never seated properly back on the pipe flange. I usually put two wax in after a tile job.

If the rental management hire the contractor to do the tile, they should be responsible. The fish clog the drain enough to have the water sit above the wax and leak. The the wax is there to stop the water. Without the fish, it is just a matter of time before they discover the problem - when was the tule done - with a slower leak.

I am not sure how much the judge with make you responsible. I will not pay and force them to take you to small claim court - unless they hold your damage deposit, in which case, you may have to take them to court. I believe that whoever manage the tile job should be held responsible as the damage will eventually be done albeit may not be quite as much. Depending on the actual damage, you may want to share 50/50?


----------



## neven

also if there was recent tile work done in the building quite often they wash the grout and thinset down the drain when they are done just running the water enough to clear the basin, rather than leave it on for a while. I've had it in a place i've rented that after the tilework, a shower would back up the water to above your ankles with the drain open.

also please tell me that you didn't pay for the repairs already, you are supposed to make them take you to small claims


----------



## Hammer

I agree w/ gklaw about the seal not set on the flange. However, I have something similar many years ago, when my brother and I owned a townhouse. A clog in the pipe before it branched into the common line was found. A small fish clogging a pipe is unlikely. 

We paid for water damages, but he said that if the clog had made it to the common line, it is shared by strata. That being said, let's hope the crappy luck is done for awhile.


----------



## Kitsune

I've been reading up on the Residential Tenancy Act, and Dispute Resolution...

Soooooo out of curiosity, what happens if you send a letter saying you don't want to pay for all of the above reasons (i.e. the plugging was your fault, but not the leak and subsequent damages). The reason I ask is because I was looking at the Tenant's Application for Dispute Resolution (http://www.rto.gov.bc.ca/documents/RTB-12-L Landlord's Application 2009 fill.pdf), and it doesn't actually have a line for you to 'not want to pay damage costs'.... It only has the option for the Land lord to get money for the damage you caused...

My point being, I'm not sure that YOU can take them to dispute resolution (or small claims court as other people are saying... which isn't necessary because the Residential Tenancy Branch has binding arbitration, i.e. its legally binding, and A LOT cheaper... no lawyer, and $50 to file a dispute resolution). Not until you either pay, and dispute to get the money back, or you don't pay and have them file the documents. Or they try and kick you out, and you then take them to dispute resolution. i.e. you need to be wronged before you can take them to dispute resolution (you haven't been yet).

I would suggest that you send them a kind letter saying that you don't believe you are responsible since the fact that the fish plugging the piping would have backed up the toilet, rather than leaked through the seal. Therefore the issue is with the initial construction of the bathroom, rather than your actions. And you cannot be held responsible for damage caused to the unit due to actions you did not intentionally cause or through negligence. I suggest you agree to pay for the $100 plumbing bill as a compromise, since if the toilet had backed up (as it should under normal circumstances) you would have needed a plumber anyway. Then say that if they are unwilling to accept this solution then you would be willing to go to the residential tenancy branch for dispute resolution by them and get it arbitrated, as you still have the fish in question, and photos of the plumbing work and are sure that the arbitrator will pass a fair judgement.

If you word the letter well (don't be threatening, but rather that you want to resolve this but you REALLY don't think its your responsibility etc) he will not want to take it to dispute resolution as its quite a bit of work (you have to file your evidence, and its unlikely that his plumber is going to write a letter about this for cheap, there's a timeline to file etc).


----------



## neven

with luck you may have a friend or family member who's a certified plumber who can contest if things do go that far, afterall, they'll use their handy man as an expert


----------



## Mferko

i think i remember gimlid saying hes a turd herder/crapper mechanic (plumber) 
maybe he'll do it for ya

my advice is dont pay the 1k, it seems common sense that if the wax seal was working properly it would have backed up your toilet instead of leaking.


----------



## Sargasso

I think that we're all on the same page here. Thanks so much for the comments and advice, it's a real confidence booster to see that most of you see this the same way I do.

I don't think that it's my responsibility to cover the $1000 in damage done by a leaking seal. Toilets plug, and when they do, they aren't supposed to leak water through the floor. I am not responsible for maintaining the plumbing in the unit I rent, so therefore, I'm not responsible for damage done by a combination of lack of maintenance and regular circumstance.

The drain was plugged by the syno and a good dose of bad luck, and it cost $134 to unplug. Unplugging clogged toilets is not the responsibility of the property management company.

That said, I have not paid, and I have no intention of paying ANYTHING for this without taking it to arbitration, either through small claims or the tenancy board. The property management company will not budge, and I don't want to give them a single hint that I am willing to take an ounce of responsibility. I have to get my case in order (read expert opinions backing me up) and see this one through. I'm definitely not one to bow to pressure, and I intend to stick to my guns on this one.

Unfortunately, I don't have any plumber friends or family members who will back me up. If any BCA members have someone to recommend, it would be highly appreciated.

Thanks again all!


----------



## Sargasso

Mferko said:


> i think i remember gimlid saying hes a turd herder/crapper mechanic (plumber)
> maybe he'll do it for ya
> 
> my advice is dont pay the 1k, it seems common sense that if the wax seal was working properly it would have backed up your toilet instead of leaking.


Maybe, it would be sweet if he could help me out!


----------



## Morainy

I have lots of experience with clogged toilets and have had to take some off and replace them. I've replaced waxy seals, too.

My belief is that if the toilet was clogged, it would overflow (the water would run out of the bowl). No matter what you clogged the toilet with, the waxy seal shouldn't fail. It seems highly unlikely that enough water would leak out of a waxy seal to damage an apartment below, without also causing your bowl to overflow (because things won't go down).

If water was pouring out of the waxy seal, in my opinion it's because the last person to put the toilet back on didn't install a new waxy seal or didn't use a proper one. Some of the waxy seals are too thin for some tanks, and it's best to get a double one or one with a neck in it. 

If I were the landlord, I'd start inspecting other toilets that were worked on in the past few years as it's likely that their waxy seals are inadequate, too. They're only a few dollars each and it's easy enough to reinstall one, so there's no excuse for them to wait for a flood.

I think that Aquaman said something similar. There's my two bits!


----------



## Rastapus

Could not agree more with the above, don't pay! Keep your fish!!!


----------



## Brisch

we replaced two seals at my house, and they were not as rough looking as the one in the picture. I would say if the waxy seal was to low and was not actually sealing the bowl then you probably have water under your tile as well. in no way could your fishy have caused all this damage without there being an underlining problem. Mr. syno just pointed it out, Dont pay for anything


----------



## gimlid

regardless of what clogs the drain, the seal on the plumbing fixture failed. The fixture is designed to hold water up the rim of the seat.
Not your fault if the wax ring fails.
Unless of course you altered or removed the toilet for some reason.
Gimlid (Red Seal Plumber, Red Seal Steam Fitter, B Gas Fitter, BCWWA Certified)


----------



## Aquaman

Totaly agree.. if the fish plugged the drain ( and this is in the floor piping not the toilet ) and every one up hill from that flushed their toilet then all the water would back up the drain in the toilet closest to the plugged drain.would not blow the seal if it was good just over flow the toilet.
One would think that if it was plugged by a 4 inch fish the weight of the water backing up into the toilet would get to the point of being able to push it free. If the seal had been good you would think that 30 plus pounds of water would of done that.
If the seal was faulty then the water would only back up to the leak in the wax seal,seeping onto the original floor.
What a bucket load of chicken poo ......keep your fish.


----------



## teija

Keep your fish! It is the owner/Landlord's responsibility to maintainhe apartment and fix general wear & tear. A toilet seal is almost certainly wear & tear! Don't let them mess you around just because they're looking for someone to pay a bill THEY would have had to pay anyway.


----------



## hondas3000

This is really bad that it happened but regardless of how you prove it the wax seal problem, they still just go for you because of your dead fish clog it. If its not the fish and just a toilet paper then you have much better luck winning. Btw the wax picture that you took, there is a section that have little or no wax, it might have stuck on the toilet when it get remove. It should be around wax


----------



## Sargasso

This case is going to arbitration. 

Thanks to Gimlid for stepping up with a formal, expert opinion to back me up. Much appreciated. It probably wouldn't hurt to have two or three plumbers in my corner, if anyone knows of a good outfit, please let me know.

Thanks all for your support!


----------



## TCR

Sargasso said:


> This case is going to arbitration.
> 
> Thanks to Gimlid for stepping up with a formal, expert opinion to back me up. Much appreciated. It probably wouldn't hurt to have two or three plumbers in my corner, if anyone knows of a good outfit, please let me know.
> 
> Thanks all for your support!


WAY TO GO GIMLID

gotta love the community spirit on this site

im am AMAZED!!


----------



## Hammer

the more I read and think, the more I think Morainy and co. are right. Toilets and pipes slow down, back up etc. when various materials pass through them. hence, plungers were invented. If every time the bowl/sink rose a leak or water damage resulted, it would happen a thousand times as much. The wax seal (suspect) is a result of installation. A bowl should be able to rise as much as the capacity will allow (which will usually not cause overflow on the first flush..not that I'm an expert, but I have unplugged a toilet or two). Enter the the plunger and obstruction is pushed out. It is common to rely on the seal (hence the word "seal"). The back up is an installation problem which would have happened sooner or later. The syno just revealed the deficient seal. It could have been anything. 

This long rant was to help clarify my thoughts..sorry all.

Sargasso. You mentioned you were pulling out of the hobby for awhile due to costs. If and when you want some and I still have some (chances are good). I will give you some young N. Brichardis for free to get you going again. I think you may already know these little guys.


----------



## katienaha

im sure a large dude can poo larger than that...


----------



## Aquaman

Having a pluged toilet and what has happened here ,are 2 different things..a wax seal has NO water even close to touching it with a plugged toilet. as the obstruction in the toilet remains in the goose neck within the bottom part of the bowl portion. Using a plunger will NOT put any pressure on the seal at all . The blokage is above the seal. The clog moves down the pipe no pressure as nothing is stopping it. 
Having the fish stuck below the seal is the problem...if you were to use a plunger even then...no pressure on the seal as the clogg and water should move into the drain pipe. and over the clog. If the hieght of the clog is higher than the pipe opening in the bath room ( or the flow of sewer water is greater than the unplugged portion will allow through. ) then it will back up. the seal should at this point hold the water that rises in the bowl. If you at this point use a p[lunger then you will have a good chance of breaking it as that is the weak link and a good plunger will create a lot of pressure . And might just blow it ....with the full bowl of water and a plugged sewer drain that is full of water .


----------



## Tsunami28

I am not a plumber but I do own my home and have fish, lol. I had a dead fish one time that I knew would be too big to flush, but I flushed it anyway. It clogged the toilet... I mean, REALLY clogged the toilet! I plunged and flushed and plunged and flushed, then confessed to my hubby. He plunged and flushed. I even had a glove on and tried to dig it out, NOTHING worked. After an hour or so, the fish finally went down. The toilet backflowed but didn't break the seal. If anything was going to break the seal that should have done it! The pipe in the toilet also goes around corners and is smaller than the actual sewer pipe. So unless there is something else in the main sewer pipe the fish isn't going to clog it. Also, if you dumped the fish in the toilet, flushed once and it was gone, it obviously couldn't have plugged anything. Not a story I am proud to share  but my two cents... good luck.


----------



## The Guy

*No no no !!!*

I agree with the folks that have posted saying NO!!! not really possible, wax rings don't blow there made of wax and are very tough. Thats why there used to seal toilets to the plumbing ring, There is no way your little fish caused the problem, As TRC says there is a lot bigger things that go down the toilet. As mentioned sounds like the drain was well on it's way to being clogged and it happened to pick now to plug up. I am a retired plumbing & heating person and I say NO ******* WAY!! Sound like they are looking for a bill to get paid!! fight it.


----------



## Elle

Agree with all the other posters. This sounds like leaky pipes/poor maintenance plus sleazy property management rather than a blocked toilet, although pressure from the blockage could have made things worse. After looking at the crappy condition of the seal, I'd be VERY surprised if the pipes were in much better condition. How old is your building and who is the prop. mgmt company?

I'd fight this one all the way to the residential tenancy branch. If you can, demand an independent plumber inspect the pipes. That bill is way OTT. I can see paying the $134, maybe, but $1100 when the seal was in that condition? Nope.

Also if you're in the Tri-Cities/Pitt/MR area and looking for a plumber, High Mark is good, although I don't know their prices. I've known the owners for a long time.


----------



## davej

This was back in October, hopefully fixed by now.


----------



## bingerz

yeah, i just read through this whole thread. i hope everything went well with Sargasso! we need an update!!!


----------



## big_bubba_B

i would say bull honky on the manedgement company for making u pay i flushed a puffer before . and it never plugged up anything . there just blaming u so they dont have to pay for it themselves , plus they have insurance on the building anf can make a claim and still collect


----------



## Obsideon

It's been over 6 months since the initial incident, I'm curious as to what the final verdict was?


----------



## jozzybdv

OMG! sorry for saying this but you flush the fish in the toilet! oh no.. poor fish.. you should just buried the fish, can you imagine dead fish swimming like crazy in the pipes? poor fella... i feel sorry for that fish.....at first why you have to drain it in the toilet? can't think of any places i guess....
i totally disagree with this..... DISLIKE : ( ----> sorry but hopefully you can get over with that HUGE amt doing the pipes.....


----------



## Nanokid

jozzybdv said:


> OMG! sorry for saying this but you flush the fish in the toilet! oh no.. poor fish.. you should just buried the fish, can you imagine dead fish swimming like crazy in the pipes? poor fella... i feel sorry for that fish.....at first why you have to drain it in the toilet? can't think of any places i guess....
> i totally disagree with this..... DISLIKE : ( ----> sorry but hopefully you can get over with that HUGE amt doing the pipes.....


it was dead before he flushed it... sooo i dont know about your swimming remarks?? why would you flush a live fish, i dont know.


----------



## Mferko

jozzybdv said:


> can you imagine dead fish swimming like crazy in the pipes?


lol, no, i cant imagine a dead fish swimming like crazy in the pipes


----------



## jozzybdv

hahaha....yap thinking about that too makes me laugh....even the fish is dead still you don't have to flush it in the toilet! see what it has done.... $1100 for the damages.....what if you just buried it, then you don't have to worry paying for that HUGE AMT....just my thought.....sorry


----------



## Mferko

i live in an appartment im not sure my landlord would like me digging up the lawn down by the pool and burying fish


----------



## jozzybdv

oh yeah.... that would be more suspicious! hehe...


----------



## April

I flushed a young koi and it
Plugged
My toilet. He was small and skinny. Wheels is right. A fish is rigid.
Shelley told me 3 days and all would be well. Decomposes enough by the third day. She was vang on. AppRently she plugged one before. 
Gimlid is
A plumber ask him. It should've overflowed though and because your
Seal was old it sealed out. So maybe
Half and half.


----------



## IceBlue

tony1928 said:


> I can't see a 4" catfish being able to clog up a drain enough to cause the plumbing failure. I suspect that they are just trying to make you pay for something given that they have some evidence that allows them to point the finger. The fish may have contributed to the backup but likely the drain may have been well on its way to being clogged anyway or that the old plumbing was already defective and just waiting to fail. Like others have said though, you may not have a choice but to pay. Good luck though, hopefully you can get out of it or at least get them to split it with you.


I agree. Plumber may have removed the clog, the fish would have been part of the mess, and the owner may know you have a tank. I'm no plummer but I think the toilet goes to a 4" line. No way the fish plugged the line - may have been the last straw but not your fault. Plenty of stuff bigger than your fish going down that pipe:lol:


----------

