damage from upstairs flat leak - who pays?

suered

Just wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation - at the weekend the flat two floors above me started leaking - through the flat above mine and down into mine. I now have a lovely water stain on my hall ceiling, bubbled paintwork and sodden plasterboard - ceiling and wall which may or may not have to be replaced.

Does anyone know who I claim from? All the flats in the building pay communal buildings insurance, but talking to the tenants in the "guilty" flat today, it sounds like a problem with a valve in the toilet tank. Does this mean I have to claim from the owners of the flat?

Am also a bit concerned if I was the instigator in a situation like this - I pay my share of the communal buildings insurance and have my own personal contents insurance, but not sure that either would apply in a situation like this?

Thanks for any ideas.

filo_2

i had an identical problem to this. the cold water stopcock two flats above mine leaked and ruined the tiling in my bathroom. the flat was ex-local authority and so there was a communal buildings insurance policy. i made a successful claim by on that policy. i did the repair myself and sent them the invoice.

don't think this has much to do with your contents insurance unless some of your belongings were damaged.

if you have a management company for the flats you should contact them first and ask them what to do.

inmypocketnottheirs

Had exactly the same sitaution only a few weeks ago. As filo says, you claim on the communal buildings insurance, as does the owner/tenant on the property above yours.

In my case the ball !!!! in the toilet in the flat above, disintegrated, filled with water and sank to the bottom of the cistern. The cistern then flooded, the occupiers of the flat above were away, my tenant was on holiday and came back to find the kitchen and bathroom under 2" of water.

It all got sorted through the managing agents with the communal buildings insurance.

Good luck!

suered

Thanks, guys. It's kind of good news and bad news - we're share of freehold. Great that I'm covered, but it also means that no doubt our premium will be going up next year and so will my contributions

Astaroth

As the damage is to the building only it is the communial buildings insurance that would cover it.

To answer the other question (in case someone actually uses the search button in the future). If your possessions had been damaged (or if you were in a situation where there wasnt communial insurance - eg in a terrace house) then you would normally have to claim off of your own insurance.

To be able to claim off another party (or their insurance company) you would have to prove that they were legally liable for the damages caused. In the vast majority of cases this is showing that they were negligent in their actions and as a direct result of this negligence they caused the damage. Your normal leaks like this are things like washing machines leaking which is simply bad luck and not negligence unless you as the claimant could show that the defendant was fully aware of the fault prior to using it.

suered

Astaroth, so if I've got this straight, a valve suddenly giving way = buildings insurance claim, whereas, if, for example, their grouting had given up the ghost and it was blindingly obvious that the tiles were only hanging on by a whisker and should have been replaced, that would be negligence and you would then claim directly against the flat owner?

Just wondering (I always look on the dark side) how you'd go about it in the latter case?

Cheers

Astaroth

If you do hold another party liable for your damages you would most often still claim off your own insurance in the first place but they would then claim against the other party under their subjegated rights.

If you werent insured for your own damages then if it is a large amount a solicitor may help on a no-win, no-fee (conditional funding) basis else it is a do it yourself job and you having to gather evidence that they have been negligent which can be anything from photos to expert reports and potentially case law to demonstrate how the courts have ruled in previous cases.

suered

Thanks, Astaroth.

courtjester

Some of the comments here are not entirely correct, the situation is a bit more complex.

Firstly, most leaks or water damage in shared buildings will be regarded as "accidents" - hence there is no right to claim against an occupier of a flat above simply because that's where the water came from.

For negligence to be shown, it would in practice require more than one incident and a failure of the occupier above (after due notice) to address the cause of the water penetration below. This in the case of situations where the occupier had no reason to know that part of their plumbing installation was faulty - it would be different if the cause was directly due to the occupiers negligent action, such as if a bath was allowed to overflow whilst running unattended.

So poor tile grouting condition for example would not in itself give rise to a legal claim for negligence, providing that the defect was resolved within a reasonable period of being informed of a problem causing water damage to others. Certainly a burst pipe or sudden failure of any water fixture or appliance would not show negligence either.

***

The question of which insurance policy (buildings or contents) a claim may be directed to is dependent on the terms of the lease or occupancy agreement, not necessarily what caused the damage.

Some leases may say that the freeholder /landlords building insurance will only insure for damage to structural parts or, in the case of interior flat decorations, only if caused by fire. Often, for water damage, the leases will make the occupier /tenant responsible for decorative finishes and hence this becomes a claim on the occupiers contents policy.

Astaroth

I am sure this is the second time you have said that something isnt correct and then gone on to say the identical thing to other people (apologies if it is someone else who did the first one).

Would apprecaite your conformation of which part was wrong of whos post.

courtjester

Hi Astaroth,

I said some of the points made were not *entirely* correct and the situations are often more complex, meaning that you cannot generalise. What may apply to one situation, may be inappropriate in another.

For example, your own comment:

>>As the damage is to the building only it is the communal buildings insurance that would cover it.<<

...may or may not be correct according to (1) whether the item damaged is defined as part of the building or part of the internal occupants fixtures (2) whether the lease or tenancy agreement states that such item(s) are insured under the freehold policy and (3) whether there is a difference in application of the lease and insurance arrangements dependent on the cause of damage, most notably in questions of fire damage or spread of fire from one part of the building to another.

Wall tiling may well be regarded as a tenant's fixture, not part of the building, but equally it can be defined in individual circumstances as part of the building. Interior (non-communal area) decorations are often regarded as the occupiers responsibility, but may be insured or not under the freehold policy. The ceiling structures and main interior walls will normally be the freeholders responsibility, but this responsibility may exclude any partition walls erected by the leaseholder...

The point I am making is that it very largely depends on individual circumstances and most particularly individual terms of lease agreements and the manner in which insurance coverage is set up in each case.

Insurance essentially covers the (insurable) interest of the party in the property, not the property itself. Where interests differ (due to different legal obligations or contracts), definitions of what is covered and under which policy will also vary.

In domestic houses where the occupier is also the freeholder, wall tiling for example would almost always be classed as part of and insured under the buildings policy. In a leasehold flat, it may or may not be classed as part of the building and it may or may not be insured under the freehold building cover.

The lease essentially determines the (insurable) interest of the occupier by what it lays down as the leaseholder's and freeholder's respective responsibilities and normally it is the lease which outlines how the various parts of the building and fixtures are addressed.

In suered's post:

>>valve suddenly giving way = buildings insurance claim ?<<

An unclear understanding - the question of cover (for the cost of repairing damaged ceiling and decor) operating under a buildings policy is not decided by the original failure being a building item.

>>grouting given up the ghost ...blindingly obvious that tiles should have been replaced, that would be negligence ...?<<

Too general - very unlikely that any claim for negligence could be proved merely because tiling (or any old apparatus) is known to be in need of maintenance, unless there was clear evidence of previous water penetration proved to be due to this source and that the occupier failed to take action to prevent a re-occurrence having been notified of damage occurring.

Hope this helps :j