Water shutoff valves - plumber callout fees

Gn93

ThePants999 wrote: »

Allowing residents to reset their own valves is necessary but not sufficient. I'm regularly in the shower for more than 10 minutes and would not particularly fancy nipping naked and dripping to the utility room part way through my shower. I can't believe that the court mandated "10 minutes" rather than just "timed" - a more sensible timer has to be part of the solution...

We were genuinely given written advice that if we were in the shower and it was approaching 10 minutes then we should shut the shower off for a period of 30 seconds and then restart it! Unbelievable. First world problem obviously but who wants to stop a steaming hot shower for 30 seconds to stand there and get cold just to start it again.

davidmcn wrote: »

Out of interest, what has actually been going on for the insurers to impose such conditions? Are there leaks being caused by the quality of the plumbing, are pipes freezing, are residents being daft and leaving baths running etc? Or is it just bad luck of having a couple of claims in close succession?

The history (as far as I'm aware) is thus:

• The flats were built with a specific type of unvented hot water cylinder in each property. One company was given the contract to supply them all when the flats were built.

• These hot water cylinders were found to be faulty with age and were I think leaking.
  The management company sent around numerous emails telling owners that they should replace their hot water cylinders if they still had an original one as the insurer was going to put outrageous excesses on escape of water claims.

• The renegotiated insurance certificate that I've just dug out shows an excess of 25k for flats with a replaced hot water cylinder and 50k for those with the original cylinder.

• This clearly wasnt enough and there must have been further escape of water claims (I'm filling gaps here - unsure of exactly what happened) but then the insurers decided to go down the shutoff valve route.

• As previously mentioned there was a court order under some legal act or other and I end up with a bill for £364.38 for the installation of the valve (non optional).

Excerpts from emails from Manco to me:

• We have awarded a contract to Aquaheat *the plumbers* who are to provide an ongoing callout and maintenance of the system.'

• 'If your tenant wants to use the shower for more than 10 minutes then after 8 or 9 minutes they need to switch the water off for 30 seconds then the valve will reset to another 10 minutes.'

paddyandstumpy

If insurers are imposing a £25k excess on EoW claims, and this was the best/only policy available, the claims history must be shocking.

As I said, having an uninsurable property is far worse, perhaps the management should invest in some ongoing maintenance and repairs, to improve the risk and show better risk management.

AdrianC

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

As I said, having an uninsurable property is far worse, perhaps the management should invest in some ongoing maintenance and repairs, to improve the risk and show better risk management.

If the problem was the hot water cylinders installed when the property was built, and they're part of the F&F of each leasehold flat, then is maintenance and pre-emptive replacement the management team's problem?

paddyandstumpy

AdrianC wrote: »

If the problem was the hot water cylinders installed when the property was built, and they're part of the F&F of each leasehold flat, then is maintenance and pre-emptive replacement the management team's problem?

Fair point, however don't forget the management will look to the leaseholder to cover the cost of repairs if there is no sinking fund, so the end result is the same...

Ultimately, if the only way the management company could get insurance is with a horrendously high excess and the flow stop device, something drastic has to happen, if losses keep occurring insurers will withdraw cover and the OP will be living in an uninsured property, I'm sure the mortgage company would have something to say about that...

Gn93

Thanks for all the participation thus far. There's been alot of chat around the background of the valves but my primary issue is the callout fee. Therefore, to bring the thread back onto its intended course..

If any new people are coming to this thread, is anyone able to comment on the legality of the callout fee?

I have emails pending with the city council and the leasehold advisory service but all views welcome - even if to tell me you dont think its illegal etc. I would like as much information as possible before writing up my formal complaint to the manco (which will be happening regardless of legality).

m0bov

Gn93 wrote: »

Thanks for all the participation thus far. There's been alot of chat around the background of the valves but my primary issue is the callout fee. Therefore, to bring the thread back onto its intended course..

If any new people are coming to this thread, is anyone able to comment on the legality of the callout fee?

I have emails pending with the city council and the leasehold advisory service but all views welcome - even if to tell me you dont think its illegal etc. I would like as much information as possible before writing up my formal complaint to the manco (which will be happening regardless of legality).

I think you would need to speak to a solicitor really if you want specific.

Gn93

m0bov wrote: »

I think you would need to speak to a solicitor really if you want specific.

As I understand it the leashold advisory service have legally trained staff who reply to enquiries so hoping that should be fruitful.

NewShadow

Gn93 wrote: »

Thanks for all the participation thus far. There's been alot of chat around the background of the valves but my primary issue is the callout fee. Therefore, to bring the thread back onto its intended course..

If any new people are coming to this thread, is anyone able to comment on the legality of the callout fee?

I have emails pending with the city council and the leasehold advisory service but all views welcome - even if to tell me you dont think its illegal etc. I would like as much information as possible before writing up my formal complaint to the manco (which will be happening regardless of legality).

I think the reason for the chat about the valves is because it's pertinent to the issue of the fee...

With regards to the legality of your liability for the callout fee - my initial view would be - if the:

1 - installation of the valves was a requirement of the insurance;

2 - duration of 10 minutes was a requirement of the insurance;

3 - access to the valves is a legitimate H&S concern subject to the requirements of the insurance and a proper assessment of risk;

4 - location of the valves was either dictated by the structure of the building or agreed by the freeholder/management committee and leaseholders according to the proper procedures for making improvements/changes to your property, as set out in your lease;

5 - the process for dealing with a shutoff valve out-of-hours and liability for the resulting fee was agreed by the freeholder/ management committee and leaseholders according to the proper procedures for your property for amending service charges, as set out in your lease or is in keeping with the terms of your lease as pertinent to liability for out-of-hours services; and

6 - the callout fee for the plumber is what the plumber/any local plumber normally charges for callouts of this nature...

...then yes - the requirement to call a plumber and pay the fee could well be entirely appropriate.

If one or more of the above isn't the case - then you may be able to argue the fee/access arrangement is unreasonable.

We can't see what correspondence you received or know what discussions were held with leaseholders prior to the installation - therefore the only advice we can offer in practically relates to the location and function of the valves in terms of reasonableness...

As above - if you want advice on absolute legality in relation to this matter you would probably be best placed to gather together the correspondence and documentation you have and book a consultation with a solicitor... I assume most still do a free half hour to establish if there's a case to pursue?

With regards your intended complaint - might I suggest, at this stage, a letter of enquiry to clarify the above points might be more suitable? Keep your powder dry, as it were, until you can determine the strongest grounds for complaining with the support of your neighbours...

G_M

NewShadow wrote: »

...... and book a consultation with a solicitor... I assume most still do a free half hour to establish if there's a case to pursue?

though I doubt even a solicitor could hear your initial explanation and then review all the documents from scratch within half an hour......


They'd probably hear your explanation, agree to help, and then quote a fee to review the documentation and provide a recommendation.

Dineen33

Gn93 wrote: »

We were genuinely given written advice that if we were in the shower and it was approaching 10 minutes then we should shut the shower off for a period of 30 seconds and then restart it! Unbelievable. First world problem obviously but who wants to stop a steaming hot shower for 30 seconds to stand there and get cold just to start it again.

I'd buy and fit my own timer, after the stopcock, and set it at 9 minutes 30 seconds.