Who is liable?

julest105

I live in a ground floor social housing flat and a new tenant moved upstairs just under a year ago. Since then I have had to deal with 8 leaks from the flat above from a badly fitted kitchen and bathroom that have damaged my decoration and flooring. I put this right at my own expense as the council told me to claim on my own insurance. I didn't as I wanted to keep my no claims, however the last leak has never dried (was October) despite me buying a 12l dehumidifier which is on most of the time. 
I called the council out again when the wallpaper fell off and there is no leak now, it's been found it's due to her filling the bath up too much and splashing water everywhere everytime she has a bath. I have been told as there us no repair needed it isn't anything to do with them. The damp in my kitchen has now got into my cupboards and is making everything mouldy, and a wall unit is about to fall down. 
My insurance is saying as it's escape of water it's a building insurance claim, but as its a council property I don't have this. 
Where on earth do I stand on this?

DullGreyGuy

When you claim off of someone else like this you are generally claiming under the tort of negligence. To do this you must prove they either did something a reasonable person wouldnt do or failed to do something a reasonable person would do. When it comes to certain individuals the standard is raised... a professional plumber will be judged against a professional standard not a reasonable person etc.

The challenge is proving what's really happening... the story of overfilled baths with enthusiastic splashing is great but how have they come to that conclusion? Most bathrooms have a waterproof flooring so can deal with modest amounts of water without issue... what's their floor? If it's not appropriate, who put it in?

Previous issues with plumbing would be hard to prove it was their fault... we are entitled to trust the average tradesman to be competent, but it may be their fault.

EoW has cover for both buildings and contents... the question is what has been damaged and if that is buildings or contents. Kitchen units are typically under fixtures and fittings that would fit under Buildings. There are some policies where it fits under contents and even if it doesn't as standard some allow you to add it as tenants improvements (unfortunately not online).

It's not clear if your property is rented or leasholid? For the later, some more basic set ups, the landlord only covers damage to the core structure itself and not the broader definition of buildings.

julest105

Thanks for the reply. I didn't really make it clear that I rent the flat from the council. 
When the previous tenant moved out of the flat above the council fitted a new kitchen and bathroom. The first leak was a couple of days after this, before the new tenant moved in. It turned out the bathroom sink taps hadn't been connected to the pipes correctly and had soaked the whole of the upstairs bathroom, soaked through the concrete floor and flooded mine. 
The next leak was the bath waste hadn't been connected to anything and happened the first time new tenant took a bath 
The next leak was the kitchen sink waste wasn't connected properly, built up in a joint in the concrete floor/ ceiling in mine, then eventually found it's way down into mine. 
Various other plumbing issues after that.
Latest one the plumber said she had wet towels all over her bathroom floor. When he found no leak he asked her what the towels were for. She told him the bath wasn't big enough for her so water went everywhere whenever she had a bath. 

DullGreyGuy

The former leaks caused by the council or their contractors you should have brought up with them... these are simplest because councils are considered to have a higher duty of care and competence than the average person and with them being landlord, freeholder and commissioner there are no escape avenues.

The fact they have wet towels everywhere is possibly a mitigation for them... they aren't just leaving the water standing there but drying it up

julest105

She has also pulled the bathroom floor up as it had got wet and bubbled so it's just a bare concrete floor.

pallyman

I feel for you,i live in a HA ground flat ,the current tenant of the last 2 years has been great but the 2 previous tenants flooded  my flat on 8 occasions & i never got anywhere with the HA,good luck would be interested to know how you get on.

julest105

DullGreyGuy said:

The former leaks caused by the council or their contractors you should have brought up with them... these are simplest because councils are considered to have a higher duty of care and competence than the average person and with them being landlord, freeholder and commissioner there are no escape avenues.

The fact they have wet towels everywhere is possibly a mitigation for them... they aren't just leaving the water standing there but drying it up

I did bring it up with the council. I had to get their plumbers out each time. They sent them out quickly each time, but (quite cleverly) never admitted responsibility.
I posted this as I really can't see where to go now. It's obvious now that my insurance isn't going to pay out. It is also obvious that the council won't do anything, it is also a fact the upstairs tenant doesn't give a flying rats !!!!!! and will continue to flood my flat.
I can only see that I have to continue to live with a constant flow of water from upstairs, or move. I have lived here 20 years and have spent a lot getting this place to my liking. 

[Deleted User]

Do you have legal cover on your insurance?

user1977

You can only sue upstairs if either landlord or tenant is causing the problem through their negligence. Landlord carrying out a defective repair (or employing someone who does so), and certainly failing to sort it out once they've been made aware, would mean the landlord is liable.

Tenant causing the problem by spilling water everywhere makes the tenant liable.

But only worthwhile suing the tenant if they've got the money (or insurance) to pay for it. I suppose there might be an argument that the landlord has a responsibility to try to deter the tenant from causing the damage, once they've been made aware, but doubt they need to do more than try - a landlord doesn't impliedly become liable for everything their tenant does.