Underdwelling question: what happens if the property above has a leak which damages mine?

JennyP

macman said:

Thank you both for pointing out the error in my post.
The main point i was trying (and obviously failing) to convey was that the mere status of the property as an underdwelling, and the adjacent overdwelling, does not remove the potential liability of the owner for damage caused to the adjoining property.
Still trying to get my head around the difference between an underdwellling and a flying freehold...are there any others I'm unaware of?

I'm not sure there's a difference - I think an underdwelling comes into the flying freehold category, but there are other situations when you might have a flying freehold other than underdwellings. Like all cats are animals but not all animals are cats if you get what I mean. But I mightn't have understood it right. 

JennyP

eddddy said:

macman said:

The main point i was trying (and obviously failing) to convey was that the mere status of the property as an underdwelling, and the adjacent overdwelling, does not remove the potential liability of the owner for damage caused to the adjoining property.
Still trying to get my head around the difference between an underdwellling and a flying freehold...are there any others I'm unaware of?

I'm still not really sure what you're referring to by "the potential liability of the owner".

It's a person who would be liable for damage as a result of their negligence - it doesn't matter whether that person owns a property or not. The person could be a freeholder, leaseholder, tenant, lodger, visitor, trespasser or burglar.


The tenure of a property (freehold/leasehold etc) doesn't really have any relevance.
 


Edit to add...

@JennyP - Just an extra thought... It's very unlikely, but when you bought the property, did you sign a 'Deed of Covenant' with your neighbour that might mention anything about water leaks?

The reason I ask... I think I recall coming across a flat lease that said a leaseholder was responsible for any damage caused by a leak from their flat, whether or not they had been negligent.

It's possible there could be a similar clause in a 'Deed of Covenant' - but TBH, I think it's unlikely.

So I would have to prove negligence? A couple of years ago, a different person upstairs - a tenant - asked her removal man to fit her washing machine. He said he couldn't but she insisted. It leaked into my bathroom and the ceiling almost came down. It didn't but if it had, I'm assuming that would have been negligent as by her own admission, she asked someone unqualified to fit the machine. 

I don't know about Deed of Covenant but I'll have a look. Thanks for suggesting that. 

Bendy_House

JennyP said:

So I would have to prove negligence? A couple of years ago, a different person upstairs - a tenant - asked her removal man to fit her washing machine. He said he couldn't but she insisted. It leaked into my bathroom and the ceiling almost came down. It didn't but if it had, I'm assuming that would have been negligent as by her own admission, she asked someone unqualified to fit the machine.

Yes, I think that could likely be an example of negligence - getting someone unqualified, uninsured, and seemingly incompetent to install it.

How easy would it have been for you to prove it's as you described, tho'?

And I wonder who would actually have been the negligent one - the delivery fellow who was doing a favour, or the tenant who asked an unqualified person to do this, and then didn't check or monitor the connection for leaks afterwards?!

Haven't a clue!