Buildings Insurance Excess

eddddy

missile wrote: »

....
I was really hoping for some guidance on what a.n.others have been asked to do in similar circumstances.
...

That wont help. Others must do whatever it says in the contract they signed.

So you must do whatever it says in the contract you signed. All contracts are likely to be different.

missile wrote: »

First thing I did was check title deeds and contract with Management Company. There is nothing to cover insurance excess.

It's quite likely that insurance excesses wont be specifically mentioned. However, it should explain how costs are allocated.

(And an Insurance Excess is one example of a cost.)

missile wrote: »

I have checked a variety of websites and forums for guidance. I have summarised the advice, I have received to date as:
...

The 4 things you list may be correct in their own contexts - but they are not relevant to your question.

The main thing that is relevant to you is the contract you signed (and/or what you verbally agreed to).

You really need to read through your contract in order to understand what costs you are liable for.

missile wrote: »

You have misread my post, fyi:
1. I did not agree to chip in.

If your contract doesn't say you have to 'chip in', and you haven't agreed to 'chip in' - then you don't have to.

eddddy

Quentin wrote: »

I have checked a variety of websites and forums for guidance. I have summarised the advice, I have received to date as:


1) Any leaking pipe within the flat (i.e. after the stop !!!! within the flat) would be the flat owners responsibility to rectify and to pay for any consequential damage to other flats, the excess, and possibly any increase in annual insurance premiums......................

That advice was poor.

The only time the flat owner would be responsible for any consequential damage to other flats would be if they could be proved to have been negligent regarding the leak.


(Leaks caused by wear/tear/accident etc are unlikely to involve negligence)

Probably... but it could depend on the broader context of the article the OP was reading.

For example, the OP may be referring to a term in a lease or contract/covenant.

i.e. The flat owner is contractually agreeing to pay for damage to other flats, even when the flat owner has not been negligent.

missile

Quentin wrote: »

That advice was poor

That advice was from one who has experience of dealing with similar claims, on Landlord forum.

missile

eddddy wrote: »

That wont help. Others must do whatever it says in the contract they signed.

So you must do whatever it says in the contract you signed. All contracts are likely to be different. Agreed, but ..........


It's quite likely that insurance excesses wont be specifically mentioned. I doubt the are (m)any where this would be specified, which is why I posted to find out what others have done in similar situation. However, it should explain how costs are allocated. In my (limited) experience cost for expense within the property are borne by the owner. Cost for communal are shared.

(And an Insurance Excess is one example of a cost.)




The 4 things you list may be correct in their own contexts - but they are not relevant to your question. Why not?

The main thing that is relevant to you is the contract you signed (and/or what you verbally agreed to). There is nothing in my, or I would suggest most other contracts

You really need to read through your contract in order to understand what costs you are liable for. This is stating the obvious and like I said there is nothing to specifically cover insurance excess




If your contract doesn't say you have to 'chip in', and you haven't agreed to 'chip in' - then you don't have to. Easy to say, LOL

Thanks for your comments,

eddddy

Ummm... so did you see in post #6 where I said:

eddddy wrote: »

OK - freehold flats are very unusual in England and Wales. (I can't comment if you're in Scotland, because it's all different.)

I've just had a look through your posting history, because you were starting to sound like a troll.

missile wrote: »

We live in a development with 6 blocks of flats.
...
We would be obliged if anyone has any experience with similar issues in Scotland?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3487981

missile wrote: »

1. There are 109 properties in our development. The residents committee find it difficult to get a response let alone agreement from a majority of the owners.
2. Property is in Scotland, this does not apply.
3. Property is in Scotland, this does not apply.

link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3044702

I'm speechless,

missile

eddddy wrote: »

Ummm... so did you see in post #6 where I said:



I've just had a look through your posting history, because you were starting to sound like a troll.





I'm speechless,

I am surprised after reviewing my posting history which includes: Posts: 7,929, Thanked 3,756 Times in 2,583 Posts you accuse me of being a TROLL.

Quentin

missile wrote: »

That advice was from one who has experience of dealing with similar claims, on Landlord forum.

Irrespective of where you got it from, the advice was poor.


Even if a lease contains a condition saying you agree to pay for all consequential damage emanating from an incident in your property it's just a landlord trying it on.


Such a clause is unenforceable. And the landlord would need to have insurance in place or risk losing his asset following a catastrophic leak or fire etc starting in a tenant's flat.


++++++++++++++++++++++


Just seen this:

missile wrote: »

.......Please leave this discussion.

No matter how polite you are you cannot expect to mod any thread on MSE.


If you don't like the help you are being given then use the ignore facility to stop seeing help from those you decide aren't to your liking!

missile

I always try to be polite and respect all forum members. I shall take your advice - you are set to ignore :-)