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

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

Harbouring resentment, especially against someone non-resident and inacessible could be pointless and self-destructive.

Your time may come, or it may not. The main thing here is that the law is clear, so you can move on, knowing there is probably nothing more you can do, without a protracted battle with the landlord and/or his plumber.

Easier said than done Dave sometimes:(

I'm struggling (hard!!!) right now with a case of "family dynamics" where someone else is as clear as hell "guilty as charged" and am trying to get my emotions under control and just deal with it dead logically/factually and wait as patiently as possible for karma to deal with it.

It is sometimes (very) hard - when one has tried as far as possible to run it past other people that can be relied upon to be dispassionate (despite being "your" circle of people) to ask AIBU (ie "Am I Being Unreasonable?").

So - I do know/sympathise with how OP feels on this and the struggle they are having with how to be "logical"/do the best they can to resolve this in a way anyone objective would see was "best possible solution and fair" and not go and "have a right go at the offender - and try to wait as patiently as possible for karma to get them".:cool::(:(

With the best will in the world - some people are short-sighted and not fair-minded and OP clearly has one of them on their hands and it takes some doing to try and stay calm whilst dealing with "one of Them".

G_M

Davesnave wrote: »

The problem is that the landlord has taken a stance, so it will most likely be difficult to get the details of the plumber.

Although it was the plumber who was (professionally) negligent, I don't think OP claims against the plumber. He has no professional relationship with the OP.

OP claims against upstairs leaseholder who employed the incompetent plumber. Upstairs leaseholder claims against plumber.

Farrella

Without going into the background of this leaseholder (we live in a politically correct world now!), this could be a cultural thing as it's not the first time I've encountered this.

Some only respect their own and their bank accounts, others are brought up differently. Realistically, even with a successful legal case, it will still be hard to get any money back if the leaseholder has no respect for his neighbours. I know my other neighbour wouldn't think twice about splitting such a small repair bill if his leak caused me inconvenience.

The issue here is not money but principles...common decency I suppose.

moneyistooshorttomention

Unfortunately having the same background as someone doesnt necessarily mean the same set of morals are applied by both people.

Even within the exact same family parents can differ as to how strictly moral they are and one child can follow one parent and the other follows the other one and the more moral child can be sickened by actions done by the other child of the exact same parents.

So - not necessarily a cultural thing at all. There are plenty of immorals in any culture.

steampowered

I don't think Op could claim against the flat owner due to the plumber's negligence.

The law makes people liable for the acts of their employees. But it generally does not make people liable for the acts of their contractors. A plumber is a contractor, not an employee. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law.

The Op could potentially claim against the plumber, if the Op can demonstrate that the plumber owed him a duty of care (difficult I think).

Perhaps the Op could say the flat owner was negligent for leaving the leak untreated for 6 days?

In reality, Op could write a 'letter before action' alleging that the flat owner was negligent for claiming to have the leak fixed for 6 days I suppose. Up to the Op whether it is worth the hassle for a 50/50 chance of payment.

moneyistooshorttomention

steampowered wrote: »

I don't think Op could claim against the flat owner due to the plumber's negligence.

The law makes people liable for the acts of their employees. But it generally does not make people liable for the acts of their contractors. A plumber is a contractor, not an employee. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law.

The Op could potentially claim against the plumber, if the Op can demonstrate that the plumber owed him a duty of care (difficult I think).

Perhaps the Op could say the flat owner was negligent for leaving the leak untreated for 6 days?

In reality, Op could write a 'letter before action' alleging that the flat owner was negligent for claiming to have the leak fixed for 6 days I suppose. Up to the Op whether it is worth the hassle for a 50/50 chance of payment.

....and a vanishingly slim chance of getting this particular "immoral" to amend their behaviour in future I'm afraid.

You can't change people like it - you can only avoid them as far as possible and tell everyone else about them when it comes to such a slim chance of getting such a small penalty out against them.

eddddy

steampowered wrote: »

The law makes people liable for the acts of their employees. But it generally does not make people liable for the acts of their contractors. A plumber is a contractor, not an employee. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law.

Mu understanding is that, in law, the plumber is acting as the agent of the neighbour - i.e he carrying out the instructions of the neighbour to refurb the bathroom.

Therefore, the neighbour is responsible for the actions of his agent.


(Your assessment is probably correct if the plumber did something that the neighbour had not instructed him to do. e.g. If the plumber stole from the OP whilst refurbing the bathroom.)

pinklady21

If the plumber was a professional person, won't they have indemnity insurance? Can a claim be made against this? Do you know who the plumber is? Have they admitted liability? Is it worth contacting the plumber to ask their insurer to look at your costs as a result of the plumber's negligence in not fitting the bathroom pipe properly, thus leading to a leak which caused damage in your property?
I ask, as many years ago, a builder I employed in my flat for a refurb project employed a number of sub contractors including plumbers and joiners. The plumber installed central heating, the joiner, when nailing back the floor, nailed through a c/h pipe which in turn caused a leak which brought down my neighbour's ceiling below. The builder dealt with it, with a claim for the damage on his insurance, I believe. Might be worth a try! (I never employed said builder again, mind you!)

economic

the previous flat i owned had a water leak coming from the above flat which was tenanted. the tenants said there was a known issue with the sink yet they still used it. after a lot of back and forth with the tenants i contacted the leaseholder of the flat (the landlord). they were not responsive and all they said its the tenants fault so ask them to pay. so i constantly bombarded the leaseholder wih phone calls and emails and they eventually paid up for the damage. funny thing was all the ceiling needed was a lick of paint, so i made a profit from it - i like to think of it as compensation for the time and stress i had to endure.

Davesnave

pinklady21 wrote: »

The builder dealt with it, with a claim for the damage on his insurance, I believe. Might be worth a try! (I never employed said builder again, mind you!)

Bit of a shame, as the builder had no direct control over the actions of his carpenter and he dealt with the problem appropriately.