water leak in block of flats - management company's responsibilities

starving_artist

I am renting out a flat through a letting agency.  There was a leak from the bathroom in to the flat below.  The occupier of the flat below notified the management company for the block meanwhile my tenant notified the letting agency.  The letting agency promptly sent out a plumber.  The management company contacted me about the leak and I informed them the action the letting agency had taken.  Unfortunately the problem wasn't fully cured and a few days later the letting agency's plumber went back and it now seems to be remedied.  However I have now had a bill from the management company who it seems sent their own plumber to investigate on both occasions, the second time out of hours.  This was never mentioned to me and I was not informed until now that he had checked the bath seals, removed the bath panel and removed boxing from the piping.  I have been told that this maintenance service doesn't fall within the usual service charge and will be added as a supplement.  While it is commendable that the management company followed up the complaint about the leak I am peeved that I have ended up paying for two plumbers.  Is it normal practice for the management company to also send a plumber in these situations since it was not an issue with the communal pipework which would fall under their responsibility.

eddddy

I can't really see a reason why the management company should be charging you for their plumber.

Why did the management company call out their plumber? Did they think the leak was coming from communal pipework? What did their plumber actually do?

I guess the management company might have been worried that the leak was coming from their communal pipework, so they called out a plumber to check. But that's not a legitimate reason to pass the cost onto you. (Unless there is some unusual term in your lease, that allows them to do that - but it seems very unlikely.)


However, if you don't pay, I suspect they'll just split the cost across everyone's service charge. (So you can then decide if you want to challenge the service charge.)

In your position, I would ask them what their legal basis is for claiming that you owe the money..

user1977

As above, I can perhaps understand them sending someone to check whether it's from a communal pipe (or some other cause which is their responsibility), but no reason why you ought to be solely responsible for the cost.

gm0

Tough situation.  It happens both ways around.  Prove it's not you before we look at communal.  And "Residents call this emergency number and we send our regular plumber to investigate".  The failure is probably poor communication not sending the plumber.

Your freeholder/self manage to agent arrangement, directors, agm minutes etc may have this somewhere in the history but not well or recently communicated.  Prior art may exist - AGMs, letters etc. If it doesn't exist you have a basis to be grumpy about paying both plumbers having not being told in advance nor at the time they were called. And that negotiation (for that is what it is) may net off yours as the second one - or pick up a share to account for the failure of communication.  On the other hand if there is an emergency call this number sign in the building then you are less likely to get a sympathetic hearing about not liking the bill when the flat plumbing was at fault.  They will argue they behaved as they are expected to do.

It's likely not something where you have a formal contractual right to stand on.

If the estate arrangements for proactivity on leaks are sensible to get onto them straight away - but not fully legally grounded - then kicking them over may not actually be in your broader interests anyway.  Next time you may be leaked on rather than the leaker and given the horror of making the contents claim for water damage (and premiums thereafter) the less damage there is the better. So proactive is no bad thing. 

eddddy

gm0 said:

Tough situation.  It happens both ways around.  Prove it's not you before we look at communal.  And "Residents call this emergency number and we send our regular plumber to investigate".  The failure is probably poor communication not sending the plumber.

<snip>

Some interesting thoughts and opinions.

But I suspect @starving_artist artist might be more interested in whether they are legally liable for the management company's plumber's bill.

Based on what @starving_artist has said, it seems very unlikely that they are legally liable for the plumber's bill.

@starving_artist can volunteer to pay the bill as a 'gesture of goodwill', if they want. But I doubt that the management company would show any goodwill back to @starving_artist.

In fact, the law makes it difficult for a management company to show goodwill (or favouritism) to just one leaseholder.


(The management company might even be purposely trying to fool @starving_artist into paying their plumber's bill, so they might just feel smug if their 'cunning plan' succeeds.)

DullGreyGuy

This is presumably a leasehold property? If so what does the lease say?

Either its your fault and you exclusively pay or its part of being in a block of flats and all the leaseholders including you have to pay your share of the bill. 

It doesnt fundamentally seem unreasonable that if you have a flat occupier phone and say they've got water coming through their ceiling that the management company would send someone to investigate. Trying to trace you to wait for you to contact the letting agent for them to contact the tenants and then the messages getting passed back up the line could easily take days and I am sure you wouldnt be happy waiting days if water was coming through your ceiling (having manned an emergency response telephone line, most werent happy waiting hours)

starving_artist

Thanks all for your thoughts.  It does seem that the management company have been unexpectedly proactive but also given that the limit of their involvement only goes as far as establishing whether or not it is a communal problem I would have thought that it would be part of their general maintenance responsibilities and fall under the general service charge.  I'm annoyed that they didn't inform me about their plumber - or the potential costs - especially as we were very prompt in dealing with the situation.  There was a resolution at an AGM a while back that where water leaks from one flat to another causes damage the leaseholder of the leaking property is responsible for making good the damage but I don't recall seeing any communication about paying for investigations.  Are resolutions taken at AGM legally enforceable?  Surely it would require an amendment to my lease?

user1977

starving_artist said:

There was a resolution at an AGM a while back that where water leaks from one flat to another causes damage the leaseholder of the leaking property is responsible for making good the damage ?

That isn't of course the general legal position (you'd only be liable if there was negligence involved, not for leaks which have occurred spontaneously). I doubt AGMs can change the legal principles like that, otherwise they could make up all sorts of nonsense.

eddddy

starving_artist said:

There was a resolution at an AGM a while back that where water leaks from one flat to another causes damage the leaseholder of the leaking property is responsible for making good the damage but I don't recall seeing any communication about paying for investigations.  Are resolutions taken at AGM legally enforceable?  Surely it would require an amendment to my lease?

Some leases say that "where water leaks from one flat to another causes damage the leaseholder of the leaking property is responsible for making good the damage". Does your lease say that?

If not, a bunch of people voting at an AGM can't change the terms of a lease - unless both parties (Freeholder and leaseholder) agree to the change.


Your posts are painting a bit of a picture of...

• People overestimating their power at AGMs
• Perhaps an over-eagerness to call out emergency plumbers
• Sending out inappropriate demands for payments 

... which gives a slight feeling of amateurishness. 


Whether it was 'reasonable' for the management company to call out an emergency plumber depends on exactly what happened at the time. For example:

• A ) If the person downstairs said "water is leaking and it might be coming from a communal pipe" - then it's probably reasonable for them to call an emergency plumber. (But you don't have to pay for the plumber.)

• B ) If the person downstairs said "water is leaking from the bathroom of the flat above" - the reasonable actions would be to contact the occupant, contact you, or contact your letting agent. (And not call out an emergency plumber.)  And maybe ask the occupant to turn off their stop-tap, or not use the shower, or put a bucket under the cistern, or whatever - until you had fixed the problem.

But things might not have been that clear-cut at the time.

starving_artist

There is nothing in the lease which refers specifically to water leaks.  The obligation to make good was definitely something that was decided at an AGM.  I'm not averse to them dealing promptly with maintenance issues but as you say I really do feel that they have been over eager especially since I acted immediately and was fully prepared to make the repairs and make good the damage.

DullGreyGuy

So this is presumably a share of freehold with the freeholder being a Ltd that you are shareholders of?

What AGMs can and cannot do are defined by a combination of legislation and the articles of association however their powers are certainly capped at the company in question. So the AGM could decide, subject to the above, that the freeholder will pay for things it legally doesnt have however it cannot vote to make leaseholders pay for things they legally dont have to. That would require a change of the lease to create the contractual obligation and there is due process outside of an AGM to change leases.