leak from upstairs flat-liability question??

Mantis_Toboggan

deannagone said:

I do agree that it seems insane that the leak can originate from another flat, but you have to pay through excess and loss of no claims/higher premiums if they weren't negligent and even if they were, you can only claim through your insurance, and they don't pursue the other person either. So you pay again. For something that is nothing to do with you.

Why does it seem insane? If the flat above you has a leak, it is very likely that the water will make its way down to the flats below.

deannagone

Not sure what your point is lol?

croboy

Yeh what if they have 3 leaks a year? Unlikely but still/just making 1 claim on another landlord policy has doubled my premium. If another driver was at fault for damage to my car (negligent or accident)-why would i claim on my insurance and lose no claims bonus? People who say “just claim on your insurance” would you do same if another insured driver hit you from behind but refused to give details.

Pixie5740

croboy said:

Yeh what if they have 3 leaks a year? Unlikely but still/just making 1 claim on another landlord policy has doubled my premium. If another driver was at fault for damage to my car (negligent or accident)-why would i claim on my insurance and lose no claims bonus? People who say “just claim on your insurance” would you do same if another insured driver hit you from behind but refused to give details.

If someone else caused damage to your car either by accident or through negligence you’re still supposed to inform your insurance company. If I was driving my car and suddenly had a completely unexpected heart attack which caused me to total your car your insurance would pay out on that, not mine, because I wouldn’t have been at fault. This is really no different. 

I’m not sure why people think it’s insane or strange to claim off insurance when these things happen. It’s the whole purpose of having insurance. 

GDB2222

A better car analogy is that you park your car next to a puddle in the road. Someone drives past, and your car gets splashed with mud, so you have the expense of washing it. Unless they have been negligent in their driving, you can’t claim the cost back.

Leaks happen in flats, and you can only claim if there’s negligence. Sorry if that seems unfair, but it’s the law.

eddddy

croboy said:

If another driver was at fault for damage to my car (negligent or accident)-why would i claim on my insurance and lose no claims bonus? People who say “just claim on your insurance” would you do same if another insured driver hit you from behind but refused to give details.

You've misunderstood how car insurance works, and you've misunderstood 'negligence'.

If you're driving a car and you crash into another car because of your negligence, you are liable for the damage you cause. 

If you're not negligent, you're not liable for the damage.

Examples of negligence include:

• Not looking properly when you pull out of a junction (which causes a crash)
• Following the car in front too close, so you cannot stop in time when they brake (which causes a crash)

If you're liable for damage to another car, because of your negligence, you can pay from your own pocket, or you can ask your insuers to pay instead.


It's the same principle with the water leak - if somebody was negligent, they are liable for the damage caused. If nobody was negligent, nobody is liable.

user1977

Or to look at it another way, if you choose to live underneath somebody else's flat, you take the risk of gravity happening.

TheJP

I guess its how you define negligence, if the leak was a result because the flat above didn't service the flat properly to ensure there would be no leaks would that count as negligence?

I don't think you can compare cars to this scenario, my wife's handbrake broke whilst it was parked and rolled into another car, no negligence but our insurance still paid for the damage to the other parties car.

user1977

TheJP said:

I guess its how you define negligence, if the leak was a result because the flat above didn't service the flat properly to ensure there would be no leaks would that count as negligence?

I don't think you can compare cars to this scenario, my wife's handbrake broke whilst it was parked and rolled into another car, no negligence but our insurance still paid for the damage to the other parties car.

I doubt your wife was liable though, your insurers probably thought it simpler to pay up than have an argument about it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "service the flat properly to ensure there would be no leaks", but negligence would be obvious things like forgetting you've left the bath running, or being aware of a leak but failing to do anything about it before it gets worse, or "fixing" it with with a rubbish DIY method.

TheJP

user1977 said:

TheJP said:

I guess its how you define negligence, if the leak was a result because the flat above didn't service the flat properly to ensure there would be no leaks would that count as negligence?

I don't think you can compare cars to this scenario, my wife's handbrake broke whilst it was parked and rolled into another car, no negligence but our insurance still paid for the damage to the other parties car.

I doubt your wife was liable though, your insurers probably thought it simpler to pay up than have an argument about it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "service the flat properly to ensure there would be no leaks", but negligence would be obvious things like forgetting you've left the bath running, or being aware of a leak but failing to do anything about it before it gets worse, or "fixing" it with with a rubbish DIY method.

It was an accident pure and simple but the process was it was our car that caused the damage so our insurance paid to fix it. 

When i say service the flat i mean by general maintenance or ensuring that the flat is adequately heated to ensure pipes don't burst etc. By living above someone else's property there surely is a duty of care to ensure that you don't cause damage.