Water leak in share of freehold flat - who is responsible?

DullGreyGuy

ThisIsWeird said:

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

A conscientious FH should respond promptly to any report of water ingress - the fabric of the building is at risk. With a number of flats involved, the FH/ManCo should have a list of plumbers, sparkies, and general builders ready to call. That's partly what the sink fund is for.
If the leak is found to be coming from something caused by a LH - a badly plumbed WM for example - then they can pursue the miscreant afterwards if they wish. If the leak is from a failed-for-no-obvious-reason pipe under the floor, that should be considered a communal issue, as it's part of the fabric of the building - part of the essential services, a component that makes a flat a flat.
Regardless, the FH/ManCo's responsibility is to mitigate damage asap.
That, of course, is my opinion, but it is also what happens in well-managed blocks of flats. It seems the correct protocol to me.

Yes - it's really important to emphasise that what you post is your opinion on how things should work.
In reality, it's what the lease and the law says that matters to the OP.
Unfortunately, you opinion doesn't really count in these circumstances.
For example, if this ended up in court, the judge wouldn't say "What's ThisIsWeird's opinion on this". Instead they would look at the lease and the law.
Most of what you say above isn't aligned with typical leases or the law.
In fact, if a freeholder did what you seem to be suggesting, the freeholder would be in danger of breaking the laws that are intended to protect leaseholders.

So if a pipe in the flat above bursts, and water courses through your ceiling, it's up to you to sort it?

Ok, I'm being flip.

But, in that scenario - water comes through your ceiling, and you rush upstairs to see if the flat above knows what's going on, what next?

You call out a plumber for the flat above? You threaten legal action against the flat owner if they don't?

Assuming it's their pipe, rather than a shared one, then the flat leaseholder needs to fix the pipe and you need to fix the damage it's done to your property. The non-contents element may well be covered by Buildings Insurance with Escape of Water though the excess may be significant. Contents damaged would be down to the leaseholders own contents insurance.

Obviously someone needs to take some emergency action to prevent further damage by turning off the water or repairing it etc. Depending on the construction and location it may be easier to do it from the upstairs or downstairs flat. 

eddddy

ThisIsWeird said:

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

A conscientious FH should respond promptly to any report of water ingress - the fabric of the building is at risk. With a number of flats involved, the FH/ManCo should have a list of plumbers, sparkies, and general builders ready to call. That's partly what the sink fund is for.
If the leak is found to be coming from something caused by a LH - a badly plumbed WM for example - then they can pursue the miscreant afterwards if they wish. If the leak is from a failed-for-no-obvious-reason pipe under the floor, that should be considered a communal issue, as it's part of the fabric of the building - part of the essential services, a component that makes a flat a flat.
Regardless, the FH/ManCo's responsibility is to mitigate damage asap.
That, of course, is my opinion, but it is also what happens in well-managed blocks of flats. It seems the correct protocol to me.

Yes - it's really important to emphasise that what you post is your opinion on how things should work.
In reality, it's what the lease and the law says that matters to the OP.
Unfortunately, you opinion doesn't really count in these circumstances.
For example, if this ended up in court, the judge wouldn't say "What's ThisIsWeird's opinion on this". Instead they would look at the lease and the law.
Most of what you say above isn't aligned with typical leases or the law.
In fact, if a freeholder did what you seem to be suggesting, the freeholder would be in danger of breaking the laws that are intended to protect leaseholders.

So if a pipe in the flat above bursts, and water courses through your ceiling, it's up to you to sort it?

Ok, I'm being flip.

But, in that scenario - water comes through your ceiling, and you rush upstairs to see if the flat above knows what's going on, what next?

You call out a plumber for the flat above? You threaten legal action against the flat owner if they don't?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

Are you claiming that I've said some of the things you've posted?

(Presumably you realise that when ThisIsWeird says "FH" they mean Freeholder.)


It's simple (as I'm sure you know really)...

• If a pipe busts in a leasehold flat, it's (almost always) the flat leaseholder's responsibility to repair it.

• It's (almost always) not the freeholder's responsibility to repair it, or send out out a plumber etc.

• ThisIsWeird is suggesting that the freeholder could use sink funds to pay for a plumber in these circumstances. That would not be lawful. (A court would not rule in favour of that.)

• The Freeholder has no duty to get involved - except to enforce the terms of the lease (which might include telling the flat leaseholder to fix the leak), and to eventually facilitate a buildings insurance claim.

So in this scenario, ThisIsWeid's suggestions that the freeholder has a duty to get involved, call plumbers, pay plumbers out of sink funds are all incorrect.

But perhaps a friendly freeholder would volunteer to help a leaseholder - presumably for free.


Obviously, if the leak is coming from something the freeholder is responsible for (like a communal pipe or the roof), then the freeholder has a duty to deal with it.

ThisIsWeird

eddddy said:

I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
Are you claiming that I've said some of the things you've posted? No, not at all.
(Presumably you realise that when ThisIsWeird says "FH" they mean Freeholder.)

It's simple (as I'm sure you know really)...

If a pipe busts in a leasehold flat, it's (almost always) the flat leaseholder's responsibility to repair it.

• It's (almost always) not the freeholder's responsibility to repair it, or send out out a plumber etc.

• ThisIsWeird is suggesting that the freeholder could use sink funds to pay for a plumber in these circumstances. That would not be lawful. (A court would not rule in favour of that.)

• The Freeholder has no duty to get involved - except to enforce the terms of the lease (which might include telling the flat leaseholder to fix the leak), and to eventually facilitate a buildings insurance claim.

So in this scenario, ThisIsWeid's suggestions that the freeholder has a duty to get involved, call plumbers, pay plumbers out of sink funds are all incorrect.
But perhaps a friendly freeholder would volunteer to help a leaseholder - presumably for free.
Obviously, if the leak is coming from something the freeholder is responsible for (like a communal pipe or the roof), then the freeholder has a duty to deal with it.

I should know this, as you've mentioned it before - thanks.

It's just weird, tho', and doesn't seem fair. It's also not the case in the only example I'm aware of - there, the FH takes responsibility for all the communal plumbing - ie, everything until it actually enters the property.

I wonder how many LHs consider it important to have Contents' insurance? I suspect most think it'll cover their literal contents, and these are all the 'loose' bits. Quite a shock if the ceiling comes down due to a leak from above. 

subjecttocontract

One of the big problems with flats is the potential for water leaks to cause problems for other leaseholders. Many of the leaks from above are not due to any negligence on the part of the upstairs leaseholder. For example their bath or shower seal can gradually deteriorate over time and leak, their isolator valves corrode slightly and develop a slow leak etc etc. Easy to fix, no big expense but the flat owner below will usually have the bigger problem. Over the years we came to the conclusion that the safest flats to buy were the top floor flats for obvious reasons.