Leasehold Property insurance claim who is liable?

Kynthia

You should use proper letters for official things like this and keep a dated copy for your records. Emails don't have the same effect, are more likely to be ignored and sometimes don't count when it comes to legal matters.

Also I've been told that anything to do with leaks in flats should go through the buildings insurer, even if it does look like it was coming from one flat in particular as they cover the whole structure. This is one of the reasons why flats only have one building insurer and not individual ones for each flat.

thequant

twizzyone wrote: »

Leak poss caused damaged to communal area freeholder says cant claim this on his buildings insurance and I have to pay right or wrong!

I havn't read your opening post properly yet, but I helped someone else with a similiar sounding situation recently (leak in leasehold flat)

Freeholder can claim whatever he wants on the the insurance, the claim is then subrograted, which means it's then for the insurance company to pursue you.

tim123456789

twizzyone wrote: »

Thank you I will try this, would email be ok rather than snail mail? So do we agree this is a claim under buildings insurance that he has rather than me paying or the repairs?

Just because someone can claim for something on their insurance doesn't mean that a negligent person is removed from being ultimately responsible for paying it.

If the damage has been caused by a negligent act inside your flat then that person is financially responsible.

dacouch

thequant wrote: »

I havn't read your opening post properly yet, but I helped someone else with a similiar sounding situation recently (leak in leasehold flat)

Freeholder can claim whatever he wants on the the insurance, the claim is then subrograted, which means it's then for the insurance company to pursue you.

For the freeholders Insurance to subrogate against the OP eg a leaseholder they would generally require to reserve subrogation against the leaseholders and / or joint policyholders or interested parties which the OP would presumably be.

Assuming the OP is a joint policyholder or interested party they would not normally be a third party.

That's ignoring the fact that by the sounds of it the OP has not acted negligently and thus be liable as they have called out the relevant trades when there's been a problem.

Contrary to popular belief, just because you have a leak in your flat does not automatically make you legally liable. You would generally have to act negligently eg ignore the leak rather than try and fix it.

twizzyone

Thanks for the help and replies, I wrote to the freeholder explaining I felt this was a building insurance claim that I pay towards via the service charge this is the reply from the freeholder! "We would agree completely that it would be inappropriate to have additional "buildings" insurance.
However, I would ask you to consider the following:
The flat above you has a washing machine that leakes over a period of say two weeks whilst you are
on holiday and when you return your kitchen ceilling is damaged to such an extenta that it needs replacing.
Do you think that you would willing to pay for the repairs yourself or would you expect the owner of the
flat above to foot the bill. The buildings insurance would not be involved as it would be up to the two parties to
sort it out between them.
The situation regarding the porch ceilling is effectively no different.
If you have not done so already I would suggest that you speak to The contractors as there should be an element of third party liability cover included in your policy and the cost of the repairs for the porch should
be paid by them."
To me this is an EXACT" situation that would involve buildings insurance?!
Next step suggestions anyone?....

FlameCloud

thequant wrote: »

I havn't read your opening post properly yet, but I helped someone else with a similiar sounding situation recently (leak in leasehold flat)

Freeholder can claim whatever he wants on the the insurance, the claim is then subrograted, which means it's then for the insurance company to pursue you.

If they contribute towards the premium they become in effect a joint insured, which would make a subrogation claim a tad difficult given the courts don't tend to like people sueing themselves.

I would also argue that as a joint insured, irregardless of the freeholders view a leaseholder is entitled to claim on the policy.

In addition, almost all block policies will contain a subrogation waiver against leaseholders, so even with negligence they will not be pursued.