Corroded condensate pipe in 6 year old flat - whose responsibility?

frenchpp

We have a leaking condensate pipe - which is located under our floor and was leaking into our  neighbour below.  We have had the housing association out (shared ownership), and they have said it is our responsibility as it is our pipe - however the pipe has obviously leaked for a long time (possibly since new 6 years ago) - as it has corroded the concrete and gone through his ceiling - I feel this is a defect / shoddy workmanship /  not installed correctly. However, the housing association wants us to pay for having it fixed - and for the pipe to divert to outside on our balcony terrace - I don't mind it being diverted, but feel it should fall under their building insurance - our contents won't cover it?  Any thoughts please?

ThisIsWeird

What's a 6-year old flat? A new-build? And the boiler was installed from new?
If so, I agree - this is not your cause, in fact it's almost certainly down to a faulty installation. Condensate pipes must be plastic. 
So, I wonder if there's any possibility in holding the installer liable? If not, then it's surely a buildings insurance claim.
You have not been negligent.
You have content's insurance? Do you have Legal Protection included?

grumpy_codger

Not that it makes any difference, but what is corroded - pipe, concrete, both?

Diverting to a balcony terrace makes little sense to me. Do they want the terrace corroded?

FreeBear

frenchpp said: However, the housing association wants us to pay for having it fixed - and for the pipe to divert to outside on our balcony terrace

The pipe needs to be diverted to a properly designed soakaway or plumbed in to your existing waste water system. If there is a gutter & downpipe to collect rain water from the balcony, diverting the condensate to the gutter would be acceptable. If the boiler is in the kitchen, plumbing the condensate pipe in the sink waste would be the conventional method (saves having to put holes in the wall, and you never have to worry about the pipe freezing).

frenchpp

grumpy_codger said:

Not that it makes any difference, but what is corroded - pipe, concrete, both?

Diverting to a balcony terrace makes little sense to me. Do they want the terrace corroded?

The pipe is leaking and the cement has been eaten away - the pipe has perished.

Because the boiler is next to the balcony wall they want to reroute it to go into the guttering and install a condense neutraliser

frenchpp

FreeBear said:

frenchpp said: However, the housing association wants us to pay for having it fixed - and for the pipe to divert to outside on our balcony terrace

The pipe needs to be diverted to a properly designed soakaway or plumbed in to your existing waste water system. If there is a gutter & downpipe to collect rain water from the balcony, diverting the condensate to the gutter would be acceptable. If the boiler is in the kitchen, plumbing the condensate pipe in the sink waste would be the conventional method (saves having to put holes in the wall, and you never have to worry about the pipe freezing).

Yes the boiler is on outside wall so makes more sense than ripping up the floor.

My main question is who do you think is liable for the cost - as it's been going on for years according to the plumber.

ThisIsWeird

What's the corroded cond pipe made from? 
If not 22mm plastic, then it's the responsibility of the installer. 

Ectophile

ThisIsWeird said:

What's the corroded cond pipe made from? 
If not 22mm plastic, then it's the responsibility of the installer. 

If it's over 6 years old, the installer won't care.  Any liability is statute barred.

grumpy_codger

Ectophile said:

ThisIsWeird said:

What's the corroded cond pipe made from? 
If not 22mm plastic, then it's the responsibility of the installer. 

If it's over 6 years old, the installer won't care.  Any liability is statute barred.

Is it not about DEBTS? And not about ANY debts?

ThisIsWeird

Ectophile said:

ThisIsWeird said:

What's the corroded cond pipe made from? 
If not 22mm plastic, then it's the responsibility of the installer. 

If it's over 6 years old, the installer won't care.  Any liability is statute barred.

We don't know the exact time. And if over 6 years, could the Latent Defect Act have a bearing, I wonder? No idea.
In any case, my point was that the cause - if it's as described - was a faulty/incompetent installation, inherent from day one, and always going to fail as a direct result; it is not the OPs responsibility, and nor was it an accident or 'act of gawd'. It would be unfair for this to not be covered by the buildings' insurance - if the installer cannot be held liable.

gm0

The liability of the installer is issue 1.  As others have said the chances of making a claim for a few hundred stick against a builder and subbies and their PI insurers this late on is a hard road. 

Not saying you can't win if you are clear and persistent but don't underestimate the difficulty. Time spent. Per comments upthread.  No lawyers because £.   First issue is being able to sue someone you have an active warranty with (which you may not have), or a prior contract with (which you likely don't either).  The freeholder/ma now may not have been a contracted party with the developer and subbie chain either.  Ownership often changes at site completion.

You may also find that this heating and plumbing is inside the "demised to flat" spaces. Check lease and other site history and plan.  To understand the convention on this.

Your boiler + drain - not exclusively "communal structure" though it may connect or drip into it

Consider the analogy - a toilet seal fails and causes a leak downstairs damage.  Downstairs fix their decor and contents self insured or on their own contents policy.  Leaky lessee fixes their toilet at their own cost.  As maintenance.  This is a toilet which is on flat demised plumbing.  Which is indeed connected to communal plumbing "downstream".  And behind a water meter on demised plumbing upstream connected to communal supply.  The buildings insurance remains studiously uninvolved.  Example two.  A communal soil stack joint leaks.  The damaged flat lessee still uses their own insurance to fix decor.  The building MA does pay to fix the communal soil stack.  It's not demised plumbing.  They may not claim on the buildings insurance and self insure this - effectively if this is more cost effective for the lessees paying via large excess and increased premium.  In some cases the investigation to get that far is paid by a lessee plumber hired from the "leaky" flat.  More leaks are demised plumbing than not.  So the onus to find out starts inside flats above water damage.  At the point the communal attribution is made - the freeholder/MA should agree to refund these costs.  You often don't know exactly whats afoot without opening up.  Any of the insurers (or parties) are free to make negligence claims - if they think they can prove it - and recover cost from other parties.  For trivia - they largely do not bother with this expensive and risky process.  The leak happening isn't negligence in itself.

Communal buildings insurance may not be interested. And this may be correct to lease, site plan and nature of cover being provided.  The freeholder/MA will also not be interested in talking about claiming on it.   As a practical matter small claims are poison on communal buildings insurance - increased year to year premiums (for leaseholders) and excess means you get little for claiming and it still comes out of leaseholder provided funds.  It's there for major fire and rebuilding.  Not leaky toilets and sloppy boiler installs.

While this sort of thing rankles.  I have bought a new build flat and had some stuff "fixed" by developer when spotted early.  As snags.  And some stuff later - which were construction defects by sloppy trades not finishing off properly.  I had to just deal with. And grumble about.

Maintenance.  Should it die so young.  No.  Was it a bodge job by a plumbing / heating subbie - for sure.  And it likely isn't contents insurance to fix it.  Or communal buildings.

This is guesswork for your lease, site plan.  But you can test the assumptions made at your convenience

The key issue for you is "demised to flat" cabling and plumbing.

Shared ownership of the flat lease adds another layer of complication as the correct ownership of those costs will depend on the lease and your contract terms with the shared ownership provider.