Leak from upstairs flat

medic1978

Hi

2 weeks ago, water started leaking from upstairs flat into my kitchen and bathroom. The upstairs neighbour wasn't in but managed to get hold of him- he arrived after 2 hours and it turns out the washing machine was leaking. There's been damage to my kitchen and to a lesser extent bathroom.

Contacted leasehold management company and got details of insurance. Insurance will pay but tell me that there is an excess of £500 for water damage.

Should this excess be paid by the leasehold management company who manage and insure the building? If I have to pay it, what's the best way (if any) to get it back from the upstairs tenant and/or landlord (upstairs flat is rented out)

Thanks for any advice

CarineG

You do not have to pay the excess as you didn't cause the damage. It is the responsibility of the landlord/leaseholder of the upstairs flat to pay for the excess. This is what the building insurance is for and there should be a clause in your lease covering damage caused by another property.


I am in the same situation as you. Last year the upstairs flat's washing machine leaked on 2 occasions. The landlord organised for someone to come and price the works but nothing happened. The flat upstairs is also tenanted.
I have been in contact with the letting agent for months but nothing was done. Finally, after much chasing they said I could go ahead with the works and they would pay for it. The builder came and did the works. Unfortunately for me, the letting agent has failed to pay for the works and the builder is chasing me as I am the one who instructed him to go ahead. I did not get anything in writing at the time and am now forced to pay the builder.

Under no circumstances, should pay for anything. Write to the freeholder as well as the landlord of the other flat and record the situation with dates and photographs (all by recorded letter). That way you are covered if they don't pay up.

Indicate that you want the works to be done asap.
The leaks in my flat were in January and June 2009 and I only got the works done in February this year and now I found myself having to pay for it.

Good luck!

G_M

Legal liability lies with the the owner/leaseholder of the upstairs flat.
There are several possible scenarios:
1) You explain to the upstairs leaseholder, ask for the excess, and he pays it.
2) You explain to the upstairs leaseholder, ask for the excess, he refuses to pay, and you sue him yourself in a Small Claims Court
3) You explain to the upstairs leaseholder, ask for the excess, he refuses and you ask the insurance company to pursue him for it
4) You explain to the upstairs leaseholder, ask for the excess, he refuses and you use the legal cover which may be included in the insurance policy to pursue him
5) You explain to the upstairs leaseholder, ask for the excess, he refuses and you pay yourself

CarineG

whatever you do - record it in writing!

dacouch

CarineG wrote: »

You do not have to pay the excess as you didn't cause the damage. It is the responsibility of the landlord/leaseholder of the upstairs flat to pay for the excess. This is what the building insurance is for and there should be a clause in your lease covering damage caused by another property.


I am in the same situation as you. Last year the upstairs flat's washing machine leaked on 2 occasions. The landlord organised for someone to come and price the works but nothing happened. The flat upstairs is also tenanted.
I have been in contact with the letting agent for months but nothing was done. Finally, after much chasing they said I could go ahead with the works and they would pay for it. The builder came and did the works. Unfortunately for me, the letting agent has failed to pay for the works and the builder is chasing me as I am the one who instructed him to go ahead. I did not get anything in writing at the time and am now forced to pay the builder.

Under no circumstances, should pay for anything. Write to the freeholder as well as the landlord of the other flat and record the situation with dates and photographs (all by recorded letter). That way you are covered if they don't pay up.

Indicate that you want the works to be done asap.
The leaks in my flat were in January and June 2009 and I only got the works done in February this year and now I found myself having to pay for it.

Good luck!

A leaking washing machine would not normally mean the upstairs flat is liable, for them to be liable the event has to be "Reasonably avoidable". This is generally not the case with a washing machine leak unless for instance they had been aware of the leaking washing machine and had taken no action.

CarineG

In my case, because they did not fix the leak in the first instance (January), they are liable for the damaged caused to my ceiling.

medic1978

Thanks all.

I don't see why I should have to pay the excess. The insurance company is the same for all flats here and the excess seems high to me. If the upstairs flat is not liable for a washing machine leak it seems less likely I'll get the £500 if they refuse to pay....

I'll have to check with the management company and the lease clauses to see if there's anything to my advantage

G_M

dacouch wrote: »

A leaking washing machine would not normally mean the upstairs flat is liable, for them to be liable the event has to be "Reasonably avoidable". This is generally not the case with a washing machine leak unless for instance they had been aware of the leaking washing machine and had taken no action.

Interesting and surprising: can you point to the act, Statute or Precedence?

My own understanding (flaky I admit) of the 'reasonably avoidable' arguement is that it applies to the victim's actions rather than the perpetrator. ie if you had taken no action to minimise the damage being caused you could not claim.

An example might be if you had not put a bucket under the leak to collect the leaking water and as a result further damage had been caused, or if you had taken no action to contact the upstairs occupant so as to turn off the washing machine. In those cases, the 'defendant' (upstairs) could argue that the damage for which you were claiming was 'reasonably avoidable', and therefore he was not liable.

I therefore believe you can still follow one of the 5 options I outlined earlier. You might wish to check with CAB, or a solicitor (many offer 1st half hours consultation free)

CarineG

G_M wrote: »

Interesting and surprising: can you point to the act, Statute or Precedence?

My own understanding (flaky I admit) of the 'reasonably avoidable' arguement is that it applies to the victim's actions rather than the perpetrator. ie if you had taken no action to minimise the damage being caused you could not claim.

An example might be if you had not put a bucket under the leak to collect the leaking water and as a result further damage had been caused, or if you had taken no action to contact the upstairs occupant so as to turn off the washing machine. In those cases, the 'defendant' (upstairs) could argue that the damage for which you were claiming was 'reasonably avoidable', and therefore he was not liable.

I therefore believe you can still follow one of the 5 options I outlined earlier. You might wish to check with CAB, or a solicitor (many offer 1st half hours consultation free)

I also think that this would be unfair for anyone leaving in a leasehold property that any damage caused to a leaseholder's flat by another leaseholder is the responsibility of the victim if it was caused by something that was not forseeable.

From my understanding if someone in your block damages your property, they are liable for it and there would be a provision for this in the lease.

It is unfortunate that damage like this occur and clearly in this instance it was an accident however the upstairs's flat would have to cover the cost of the repairs.

medic1978 - the leaseholder of the upstairs flat should get some quotes for the repairs because if it is a simple re-decorating job, it may be less than £500 for the works

vickiv55

I am in a similar situation, however in my case, I am in rented accomodation and my upstairs neighbour is renting also. His bath/plumbing is leaking through my bathroom ceiling and although I have told him and my landlord about this nothing is being done.
My landlord has been to see the leak, which looks horrific, but is now not answering texts/phonecalls from me.
I don't quite know what to do next. Do I keep leaving messages for him?

dacouch

G_M wrote: »

Interesting and surprising: can you point to the act, Statute or Precedence?

My own understanding (flaky I admit) of the 'reasonably avoidable' arguement is that it applies to the victim's actions rather than the perpetrator. ie if you had taken no action to minimise the damage being caused you could not claim.

An example might be if you had not put a bucket under the leak to collect the leaking water and as a result further damage had been caused, or if you had taken no action to contact the upstairs occupant so as to turn off the washing machine. In those cases, the 'defendant' (upstairs) could argue that the damage for which you were claiming was 'reasonably avoidable', and therefore he was not liable.

I therefore believe you can still follow one of the 5 options I outlined earlier. You might wish to check with CAB, or a solicitor (many offer 1st half hours consultation free)

The test is whether they are legally liable which is could the damage have reasonably been avoided.

The bucket is not a particuarly good example as the flat owners could be out so it would not be reasonable for them to put a bucket under a leak.

If the washing machine just broke down then it is unlikely you will prove they are legally liable.

As the other poster mentioned they were successful as the person did not fix the leak so thus the subsequent damage could have been reasonably avoidable.

A good example of "reasonable" is Macdonalds have rotas in their toilets to note when the toilets were cleaned and checked. If you slip up on water spilt in their toilet or a leaking toilet they simply show the court the rota and assuming they have been checked reguarly (And the toilets serviced reguarly) the court will rule in Macdonalds favour as they have taken "reasonable" steps to prevent the incident