leak from upstairs flat-liability question??

carefullycautious

I have been flooded out from an upstairs flat many moons ago and had to claim on my own insurance. I loved my GF Flat but the risk of it happening again forced my decision to move. You are at the mercy of who ever lives upstairs to maintain everything to prevent this.

user1977

TheJP said:

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.

The point is that there's no legal principle that just because your car caused the damage, you're liable. If you e.g. suddenly fall ill at the wheel, or it was caused by some other incident which you couldn't have reasonably foreseen, you're not legally liable. If the handbrake cable suddenly snapped (and was fine at the last MoT etc), why would it be your fault?

Yes, a householder is expected to take reasonable care to avoid frozen pipes etc, but there's no implication that they're liable for leaks merely because they occurred in their property.

TheJP

user1977 said:

TheJP said:

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.

The point is that there's no legal principle that just because your car caused the damage, you're liable. If you e.g. suddenly fall ill at the wheel, or it was caused by some other incident which you couldn't have reasonably foreseen, you're not legally liable. If the handbrake cable suddenly snapped (and was fine at the last MoT etc), why would it be your fault?

Yes, a householder is expected to take reasonable care to avoid frozen pipes etc, but there's no implication that they're liable for leaks merely because they occurred in their property.

Yes of course but that's why we have insurance to protect ourselves and third parties. If someone fell ill at the wheel and wrote my car off i would expect their insurance to cover the damage. 

If the flat above me failed to take reasonable care of pipes or anything that could cause a leak (by being ignorant) in my eyes that is negligence, the issue is proofing that is the case.

The system is the way it is unfortunately whether we agree with it or not.

user1977

TheJP said:

user1977 said:

TheJP said:

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.

The point is that there's no legal principle that just because your car caused the damage, you're liable. If you e.g. suddenly fall ill at the wheel, or it was caused by some other incident which you couldn't have reasonably foreseen, you're not legally liable. If the handbrake cable suddenly snapped (and was fine at the last MoT etc), why would it be your fault?

Yes, a householder is expected to take reasonable care to avoid frozen pipes etc, but there's no implication that they're liable for leaks merely because they occurred in their property.

Yes of course but that's why we have insurance to protect ourselves and third parties. If someone fell ill at the wheel and wrote my car off i would expect their insurance to cover the damage. 

No, like I said, in that situation, where it's "an accident pure and simple", nobody is legally entitled to sue each other. You'd need to look to your own insurance to cover your losses. Otherwise you'd need to prove e.g. that the driver hadn't followed medical advice not to drive or to take medication etc.