Buildings Insurance - Excess nightmare!

Captain_Howdy

Hi all,
I'll try to keep this short and to the point...
We own a flat in a block of 6 in a leasehold basis. We pay a service charge which includes building insurance.
Anyway, our upstairs neighbors had a slow leak in their bathroom which has caused damage to our bathroom ceiling and the corner oh the adjoining kitchen ceiling.
We called the managing agents to said there was nothing they could do and we should contact the insurance company who eventually sent out the loss adjuster who confirmed the claim.
We were told that we had to provide 2 quotes which we have duly done.
The problem we have however is that we have to pay the excess (totaling £500) - the accepted quote was only £150 more than that.
We were told that although we were the innocent party we would have to try and claim the £500 back from our upstairs neighbors!
I am gobsmacked that it should be down to us to do this! I do not relish knocking on their door asking for £500 and can already guess their reaction to this request...
Do we have anywhere to stand on this? At the end of the day I would think that the whole block falls under the same policy, and should surely be up the the MA to sort out - we are paying THEM after all.

Any help much appreciated

InsideInsurance

You have to be able to prove negligence on the other parties behalf to show it is their fault. Simply having a leak doesnt make you automatically liable for the damages your neighbours suffer, knowing about it and not doing anything in a reasonable timeframe can.

Do you have legal expenses cover on your contents insurance? If you do it may assist you in attempting to make a recovery against your neighbours but they will only take it on if you can prove the above.

Captain_Howdy

Thanks for the reply InsideInsurance. Looks like we may be left having to pay £500 after all then. Can't really see how that if fair though as with any other kind of insurance - car for example, it wouldn't really be a case having to prove the other driver was necessarily negligent when claiming against them. If their handbreak cable had broken and the car rolled into mine I would fully expect to claim from them even though it was not their fault per say.

lisyloo

car for example, it wouldn't really be a case having to prove the other driver was necessarily negligent when claiming against them

I think you might be suprised then.
There was a case on here recently (I think it was a BMW on fire) where they are denying liability to 3rd parties as there was no negligence.

Sometimes accidents happen and it's no-ones fault and that is what your own insurance is there for.
I agree it's frustrating if it wasn't your fault and also if it was caused by someone else's property.

mikey72

Captain_Howdy wrote: »

Thanks for the reply InsideInsurance. Looks like we may be left having to pay £500 after all then. Can't really see how that if fair though as with any other kind of insurance - car for example, it wouldn't really be a case having to prove the other driver was necessarily negligent when claiming against them. If their handbreak cable had broken and the car rolled into mine I would fully expect to claim from them even though it was not their fault per say.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3467531