Damage to our home by neighbouring property.

Ashleigh19

Hi,


I’m looking for some further information regarding compensation after our home was damaged by the property upstairs.


Our property suffered extensive water damage and three rooms needed redecorating (kitchen, hall and bathroom). Work included: Plastering, Painting, tiling and other odd bits which cost came to quite a few £££s.


After an independent surveyor assessed the damage, he discovered the issue was a result of a faulty appliance (washing machine) in the apartment above.


I understand that landlords are not responsible for damage caused to a neighbouring property if the damage was caused by their tenant (ridiculous), however, all appliances and furniture is owned and fitted by the landlord, therefore, I have been advised that the landlord would be responsible for any damage caused to our home.


Is this correct?

DTDfanBoy

No that's not really correct at all.

It is possible for a LL to be liable for damage caused to your flat by their tenant.

The fact that the washing machine is owned by the LL doesn't necessarily make them liable for damage to you flat.

In order for another party to be liable for the damage caused to your property you would need to show that the damage occurred as a result of their negligence.

You'll probably need to claim via your own building/contents insurance, this is one of the risks you accept when living in a flat.

Ashleigh19

Hi,

Thanks for the reply, although I do have to correct one thing in my original post.

My partner has informed me that the washing machine was not correctly installed. He said that this is what is written down in the surveyors report.

Judging by what you have said in your previous post, this means we would have a claim, correct?

I would love to agree with you about LL being responsible for their tenants, but everything seems to contradict this information, unfortunately. I'm aware of this because my friend is having a problem with their neighbour and his dog which is not only tresspassing on the garden, but it has also ventured in the property on a number of occasions. She locked herself in her room one day and had to call her BF to come home. Its also caused damage, but the LL does not want to know and says it is an issue between them his tenant.

macman

Why didn't you simply pass the details to your own insurers and let them deal with the claim, be it with the LL, tenants, or their respective insurers? Let them argue liability.That what you pay your premium for.
But if you've already had the repairs done, then too late to claim now.

Thomas_Ecclestone

@Macman: Nonsense, just because the work has been completed does not mean that they cannot claim compensation via the courts.

If the damage was caused by the tenant, the OP could probably hold the LL liable under Ryland v Fletcher.

dacouch

Thomas_Ecclestone wrote: »

@Macman: Nonsense, just because the work has been completed does not mean that they cannot claim compensation via the courts.

If the damage was caused by the tenant, the OP could probably hold the LL liable under Ryland v Fletcher.

Macman was talking about claiming against the OP's own insurance.

Ryland v Fletcher would still require the op to demonstrate the neighboor had been negligent.

Ashleigh19 you mention your surveyor stated the appliance had been installed incorrectly. How does he know this did he come to this conclusion by physically checking the appliance in situ in the neighboors home or was he assuming it was installed incorrectly?

Seronera

dacouch wrote: »

Macman was talking about claiming against the OP's own insurance.

Ryland v Fletcher would still require the op to demonstrate the neighboor had been negligent.

Ashleigh19 you mention your surveyor stated the appliance had been installed incorrectly. How does he know this did he come to this conclusion by physically checking the appliance in situ in the neighboors home or was he assuming it was installed incorrectly?

You have the wrong end of the stick with Rylands vs Fletcher, which establishes a form of strict liability where negligence may not be a consideration whatsoever. If something escapes from your property and causes damage, then you are liable regardless, is the principle established in R. vs F.

macman

Yes, of course they can start their own action retrospectively, but why didn't the OP use their own insurers to settle the claim-othewise what is the point of having insurance?

dacouch

Seronera wrote: »

You have the wrong end of the stick with Rylands vs Fletcher, which establishes a form of strict liability where negligence may not be a consideration whatsoever. If something escapes from your property and causes damage, then you are liable regardless, is the principle established in R. vs F.

You do realise that R V F does not normally apply to domestic installations...

Seronera

dacouch wrote: »

You do realise that R V F does not normally apply to domestic installations...

I didn't say it did.Somebody else referred to R vs F and got it wrong. I just put them right. I didn't comment on anything else.