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

eddddy

DullGreyGuy said:

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

I guess that's a typo and you probably mean "share of freehold".

("Share of freehold" isn't a particularly good description of the set-up, but "shared ownership" usually refers to a government scheme which allows you to buy a percentage of your home.)

starving_artist

It's not shared ownership.

DullGreyGuy

eddddy said:

DullGreyGuy said:

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

I guess that's a typo and you probably mean "share of freehold".

("Share of freehold" isn't a particularly good description of the set-up, but "shared ownership" usually refers to a government scheme which allows you to buy a percentage of your home.)

Apologies, yes, share of freehold. Have corrected.

subjecttocontract

My understanding of water leaks in flats is this:
Nobody is responsible for gravity and if water leaks it's going to end up in the property or properties below. The flat above, from where the leak occoured, can only be held responsible if they have been negligent. Negligence is very difficult to prove. A gradually deteriorating bath seal or a slow leak from a hidden pipe over time does not mean the flat owner has been negligent. Repair costs should be paid by the block buildings insurance and any excess paid by the lower flat that has incurred damage that is repaired. Simples.

starving_artist

subjecttocontract said:

My understanding of water leaks in flats is this:
Nobody is responsible for gravity and if water leaks it's going to end up in the property or properties below. The flat above, from where the leak occoured, can only be held responsible if they have been negligent. Negligence is very difficult to prove. A gradually deteriorating bath seal or a slow leak from a hidden pipe over time does not mean the flat owner has been negligent. Repair costs should be paid by the block buildings insurance and any excess paid by the lower flat that has incurred damage that is repaired. Simples.

I believe you are correct from a legal point of view. However it is not a principle widely understood by flat owners hence the regularity of posts about it. 

My beef though is that in this case the management company seem to expect me to indemnify them for investigating (without telling me) whether the leak related to my flat's plumbing or the block's communal plumbing when I was already instructing my own plumber, resulting in me being faced with two lots of plumbing bills.

subjecttocontract

Well leases are complicated and there are often significant differences from one development to another and we haven't seen yours. However, most leases make:
* the leaseholder responsible for the pipes & seals within their flat .....not the Man' Co' and
* place an obligation on the freeholder/ Man' Co' to effect buildings insurance.

It seems from your post that your plumber, sent by your lettings agents didn't fix the problem. The Man' Co' have a responsibility to take action if a leaseholder doesnt. It would seem the leak persisted so they had to make another out of hours visit to fix it. 

Personally, in your shoes, I would contact the building insurance, explain you have had a water leak, incurred plumbers costs to fix/repair and make a claim.

I always make sure my neighbohrs, my Man' Co and anyone else has a contact for me or my Agents 24/7 in case of problems.

Oh......some advice I was given years ago.......always buy a top floor flat.

eddddy

subjecttocontract said:

Personally, in your shoes, I would contact the building insurance, explain you have had a water leak, incurred plumbers costs to fix/repair and make a claim.

• Buildings insurance wouldn't cover plumber's costs for repairing a leaking pipe.

• If the buildings insurance included 'trace and access' cover, that would cover the cost of finding the leak (but not repairing it), and making good afterwards. e.g. If a floor had to be taken up and put back afterwards - and maybe floor tiles were broken in the process.

• But I doubt that a freeholder's building insurance would include 'trace and access' cover anyway.

• Even if the freeholder's building insurance did include 'trace and access' cover, I suspect you'd have to contact the insurer first and use their recommended tradespeople - and not just call out your own choice of tradesperson (who might charge an extortionate rate).

subjecttocontract said:

The Man' Co' have a responsibility to take action if a leaseholder doesnt. 

Is that right? I'm not sure I've seen a term like that in any lease.

Why wouldn't the management co simply ask (tell) the OP's tenant to turn off the mains stop-tap? (If the tenant refused, they would then be potentially negligent and liable for any further water damage.)

I guess that in an extreme situation, if the tenant, the OP, and the OP's letting agent were all uncontactable, it might be reasonable to break into the flat to turn off the mains stop-tap. But it doesn't sound like that was the situation.

subjecttocontract

In that case perhaps the OP could ask the Man' Co' why they acted in the way they did & why did they not contact him, his agent or his tenant before taking it upon themselves to arrange their plumber to visit. Their explanation of their actions should shed more light on the story.

starving_artist

subjecttocontract said:

In that case perhaps the OP could ask the Man' Co' why they acted in the way they did & why did they not contact him, his agent or his tenant before taking it upon themselves to arrange their plumber to visit. Their explanation of their actions should shed more light on the story.

That is what I have done - although it seems they asked me to arrange a plumber even as they were arranging their own.

subjecttocontract said:

It seems from your post that your plumber, sent by your lettings agents didn't fix the problem. The Man' Co' have a responsibility to take action if a leaseholder doesnt. It would seem the leak persisted so they had to make another out of hours visit to fix it. 

The management company were never interested in fixing it unless it was a problem with the communal plumbing.  They did not fix it.  My plumber did (the second time).

subjecttocontract said:

I always make sure my neighbohrs, my Man' Co and anyone else has a contact for me or my Agents 24/7 in case of problems.

Oh......some advice I was given years ago.......always buy a top floor flat.

There was no delay in contacting me or in me responding.

It is a top floor flat.

The excesses on both the block's building insurance and my own landlord's contents policy don't make it worthwhile involving insurers.

subjecttocontract

Ok your explanation further clarifies the situation for me.
If the Man' Co' asked you to arrange a plumber and ultimately your plumber fixed the problem then I have no idea why you are being asked to pay the Man' Co' costs or why they even got involved if you were on it at their request and dealing with it. Ask them why you are being billed for their plumber.

Now you made a comment about insurance excess......I know it probably doesn't apply to you in this situation but for the future here is how it usually works on leasehold flats :
The lease requires the freeholders to effect building insurance. In order to keep premiums lower they often take insurance that specifies ......for example .....water leak claims carry a £500 excess. But the lease doesn't require them to take buildings insurance with an excess, it requires them to cover all leaseholders with 100% insurance. So, if someone needs to make a claim they are reimbursed for the cost of the claim by the insurers, less the £500 excess. The leaseholder is then entitled to have the £500 reimbursed by the Man' Co' from the service charge account because the lease says they are to be covered 100%. This means ultimately there is no excess to pay on any buildings insurance claims.