Washing machine leaked do I have to pay for damage?

Sunnyday2100

The washing machine in my flat leaked and caused some water damage to the flat below. I informed my neighbour to make a claim against the building insurance, however he has been told that the damage is minor and therefore less than the excess so they won't pay. He has now asked me for £100 to pay for the repainting of his ceiling. Do I have to pay this as it was totally accidental and leak has been stopped?

Annisele

I think there's two sides to this: the strict legal side, and the 'keeping good relations with my neighbours' side.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe (ready to be corrected) that you'd only be liable for the £100 if you were negligent. So - why did your washing machine leak, had you been maintaining it properly, etc etc.

From the 'neighbourly relations' side - it was your washing machine that leaked, so why should he have to pay for damage that you caused (regardless of how accidental it was)? Depending on your financial position, and your general relations with your neighbours, you might want to just pay the £100 and throw in some wine or something for the trouble you've caused him.

Quentin

Sunnyday2100 wrote: »

He has now asked me for £100 to pay for the repainting of his ceiling. Do I have to pay this as it was totally accidental and leak has been stopped?

Not at all.

He would stand no chance were he to go all the way to court over this where the case would be thrown out.

As already posted you are only liable to pay for any damage resulting from your proven negligence.

Sunnyday2100

Thanks both for your advice. I know I wasn't negligent as it seems to have been a very slow leak from the connection to the water supply - easily sorted, but I never would have known but for this incident. The flat is being sold and I've already moved out, plus I don't have £100 to spare for this. It might seem mean not to pay, but I know he's quite well off. Besides the £100 is to cover the cost of paying someone to do the painting, whereas the cost of materials is probably far less!

peterbaker

Interesting one, but washing machines do not just leak. They can be abused by failure to maintain or failure to follow instructions. Both are indications of negligence. Someone is responsible.

Do you rent? Or is it your own washing machine?

How was it fixed? Did it need to be fixed? What exactly happened?

If you rent furnished then possibly it could be a maintenance issue which the landlord was responsible for.

Look at it this way ... if your below neighbour had no insurance and you had been away for the weekend and so had the neighbour and the washing machine had leaked continuously from a mains feed for example and completely ruined everything below to the tune of thousands of pounds, then who then pays then?

The most likely insurer to be involved in such would be your (and/or if renting your landlord's liability insurer).

I am not sure what the general view is thesedays, but a couple of decades ago I think it likely that your neighbour's suggestion would have been the most reasonable course. I am interested to learn what basis of knowledge or experience Quentin leads you to feel correct in making your bold statement on something as typical as this? Obviously a only a tiny proportion of these cases ever goes near a court because reasonable parties involved settle the differences in reasonable ways. 'Proven negligence' is a high ideal indeed.

Edit: Ah you have explained what happened. So it was the mains feed albeit you and the neighbour were lucky it was a slow leak. Someone had compromised the mains feed fitting. I can see you have already made up your mind to suit your pocket and your view of your neighbour's pocket. Nice.

huckster

You are supposed to change the plastic water feed pipes on washing machines about every 5 years. Also on both the cold and hot water feeds into the machine, it is advisable to remove them (say) twice a year to clean the mesh filter out and to make sure the connections are tight with no leaks. This is what I do now, having had small leaks from these connections.

In regard to these issues in flats, there are similar posts on this forum on a daily basis. A lot of people fee morally obliged to pay the neighbours excess, but legally if negligence is difficult to prove, they can avoid doing so, as unlikely to be taken to court. The problem with people making a moral decision to pay, is that if they don't quality why they are paying the neighbour, the neighbours Insurers could jump on the bandwagon and try to recover their claim settlement. Therefore if people do pay the neighbour, they should make it clear that the payment is not an admission of any negligence.

Quentin

peterbaker wrote: »

I am interested to learn what basis of knowledge or experience Quentin leads you to feel correct in making your bold statement on something as typical as this? Obviously a only a tiny proportion of these cases ever goes near a court because reasonable parties involved settle the differences in reasonable ways. 'Proven negligence' is a high ideal indeed.

Were the neighbour to put in a claim against the OP he could pass it to his insurer to deal with. They would refuse the claim in the absence of any proof of negligence.

The neighbour's only legal remedy would then be to sue for the money.

This would fail!

The size of the claim is immaterial. (What if the neighbour had no insurance and the claim was for £20000 - the outcome would be the same were there no proof of negligence, and the neighbour would be left with stumping up the costs)

peterbaker

Quentin wrote: »

Were the neighbour to put in a claim against the OP he could pass it to his insurer to deal with. They would refuse the claim in the absence of any proof of negligence.

20 years ago probably not; now in 2010 - yes almost all liability insurers would deny it as a matter of course.

The neighbour's only legal remedy would then be to sue for the money. This would fail!

What makes you so sure that it would fail? Do you have any special knowledge of precedents? Or are you just asserting a view?

Quentin

peterbaker wrote: »

Look at it this way ... if your below neighbour had no insurance and you had been away for the weekend and so had the neighbour and the washing machine had leaked continuously from a mains feed for example and completely ruined everything below to the tune of thousands of pounds, then who then pays then........... I can see you have already made up your mind to suit your pocket and your view of your neighbour's pocket. Nice.

You seem to be arguing this purely on your view of the moral responsibility.

To answer your hypothetical question, the neighbour would have to pay out of their own pocket just as they would should any other accident/incident that was uninsured hit their property.

The practical advise given (irrespective of your sarcastic view the OP is "nice") is the correct one. We are not liable if we can't be shown to have been negligent in cases like this.

People in flats should be aware of this and insure accordingly if they want to have cover.

peterbaker

Again, Quentin, I would ask you upon what experience or precedents you are basing your very assertive advice.

I spent years in general insurance and your views clearly do not chime well with mine.

huckster

I agree with Quentin on this issue. I have not come across an Insurer paying a policyholders neighbour their excess back, where negligence is doubtful.

In order to succeed in a case of negligence you must show three things :
1 that a duty of care exists
2 that the duty of care was breached and
3 that damage flows, from the duty of care.

Point 1 would be easy, but 2 would be more difficult.

I suspect that if there was a huge amount involved in this type of situation, then money would be invested in taking this forward legally. But they would drop short of taking this to a level where it would set a precedent. Insurers probably quite like to see policyholders pay the excesses and leave it up to them to sort it out with their neighbours. I can't see too many people spending money on court fees to try to get their excess back, when as claimant the onus will be on them to prove that their neighbour breached a duty of care.