Leaseholder upstairs confirms his bath leaked into mine, refuses to pay repair costs

Farrella

The flat upstairs had a loose drain pipe and water leaked into my bathroom. The leaseholder's plumber found the fault after a few days and fixed the problem. I have saved the email of the leaseholder confirming the leak was caused by a loose drain pipe in his newly refurbished bathroom (presumably it's his plumber's fault).

The repair cost is below the excess of the insurance, and also the leak is not from the roof or communal area but from the leaseholder's flat.

He refuses to pay and stated this as his reason:

Your legal advisors should have advised you that you have to prove malicious intent of the leak. You'll find the law is clear on that.

It seems like he is the type who would refuse to pay no matter what, just getting him to fix the leak was pretty difficult. The repair cost is low but I want to pursue what is fair, even if it takes time.

Any thoughts?

G_M

He s right but for the wrong reason.

You do not have to prove malicious intent, but negligence.

In this case (going on what you have said) he was not negligent. As soon as he became aware of the leak, he took action and fixed it. He was not negligent as would be the case if he ignored a known leak.

Likewise (unless there is something else we don't know about) the leak was not caused by negligence. It just happened, as is sometimes the case. No one's fault - stuff happens.

nicmyles

My thoughts are that he's an absolute ****.

Legally, he's not wrong. Morally, he should pay and I think most people would. If nothing else, and if morality isn't a good enough reason, because you're his neighbour and he might need you to do him a favour one day. Which you now won't, I'd imagine.

comeandgo

He is not liable, it's a repair job you have to do, what damage was caused? I would imagine it's just cosmetic?

££sc££

can't you claim for the damage on the buildings insurance for the block? the excess could be an issue though. sounds like a right old nasty person, legally he may not have been negligent, but morally? hopefully karma will come and bite him!

agrinnall

££sc££ wrote: »

can't you claim for the damage on the buildings insurance for the block? the excess could be an issue though.

Read the OP...

Farrella wrote: »

The repair cost is below the excess of the insurance...

Farrella

Well I guess I stupidly thought that having been his neighbour for over 10 years, and having never complained about his tenants' partying at 4am, he'd at least offer to chip in a few quid.

The damage is cosmetic, there is 3 foot ceiling crack directly below his bathtub. It took him over 6 days to fix the leak.

Apart from the inconvenience, the total repair cost is around £180 (excess is £500 for insurance claims). I asked him to contribute something, and he said "no way". He owns several flats (in London), he can easily afford it.

So basically the consensus is he has to be "negligent" in order to be legally responsible? Is this what normally happens? If my bath leaked into my neighbour's flat, I would have expected to be responsible for some repair costs and maybe at the very least say "sorry"?

Pixie5740

Farrella wrote: »

Well I guess I stupidly thought that having been his neighbour for over 10 years, and having never complained about his tenants' partying at 4am, he'd at least offer to chip in a few quid.

The damage is cosmetic, there is 3 foot ceiling crack directly below his bathtub. It took him over 6 days to fix the leak.

Apart from the inconvenience, the total repair cost is around £180 (excess is £500 for insurance claims). I asked him to contribute something, and he said "no way". He owns several flats (in London), he can easily afford it.

So basically the consensus is he has to be "negligent" in order to be legally responsible? Is this what normally happens? If my bath leaked into my neighbour's flat, I would have expected to be responsible for some repair costs and maybe at the very least say "sorry"?

Well now you know that you wouldn't be (legally) responsible unless it could be proved you had been negligent.

Farrella

Logically and morally, a faulty refurbishment of a bathroom could count as negligence, but I guess legally it doesn't (even though the leak wasn't repaired for 6 days)....that's the message I'm getting.

£100 or so is a small price to pay to keep an ally in a small building. My father paid £800 to repair his neighbour's damages (she threatened legal action, but the scenario was almost the same as here except she had a more expensively fitted out bathroom) caused by his bathroom's leak.

I won't forget this in a hurry.

G_M

There are many difeerences between morality and law. This is just one example. I'm afraid I skim-read the OP, and provided advice on the legal position. Re-reading, I see you asked:

I want to pursue what is fair, even if it takes time.

In this case you could either
* use legal argument ie by trying to convince him it is on your side even though it is not, or

* try to guilt-trip him ie by inviting him round, offering him not just tea and cake, but a full-blown crem tea, and then showing him the damage, or

* by appealing to his sense of fair-play ie with a letter setting out what you see as the moral isues

HampshireH

He is running a business. His main aim is to make money not to give it away where he doesn't need to. I think you will spend more in time and energy chasing this one with little or nothing to show for it at the end.