£5,000 Excess on building insurance????

WIAWSNB

eddddy said:

WIAWSNB said:

eddddy said:

WIAWSNB said:

This is for them to sort out - they are supposed to be the building 'managers'...

No - it's not for the management co to sort out.

The OP is responsible for fixing damage to their own flat (and paying for the repairs).

And the downstairs neighbours are responsible for fixing damage to their flats (and paying for the repairs).


The only time the management co would get involved is if the OP or the neighbours want a building insurance claim initiated. The Management co would need to start the claim process.

WIAWSNB said:

You didn't make this happen. 

And the management co didn't make this happen either.

How are the owners of the downstairs flats supposed to fix their own flats, if - say - ceilings have come down, walls need replastering, and floors need replacing?

The owners of the downstairs flats hire plasterers, decorators, flooring contractors etc.
That's the kind of thing property owners have to do, when their property is damaged and needs repairing.

So they pay out of their own pockets for this?

eddddy

WIAWSNB said:

eddddy said:

WIAWSNB said:

eddddy said:

WIAWSNB said:

This is for them to sort out - they are supposed to be the building 'managers'...

No - it's not for the management co to sort out.

The OP is responsible for fixing damage to their own flat (and paying for the repairs).

And the downstairs neighbours are responsible for fixing damage to their flats (and paying for the repairs).


The only time the management co would get involved is if the OP or the neighbours want a building insurance claim initiated. The Management co would need to start the claim process.

WIAWSNB said:

You didn't make this happen. 

And the management co didn't make this happen either.

How are the owners of the downstairs flats supposed to fix their own flats, if - say - ceilings have come down, walls need replastering, and floors need replacing?

The owners of the downstairs flats hire plasterers, decorators, flooring contractors etc.
That's the kind of thing property owners have to do, when their property is damaged and needs repairing.

So they pay out of their own pockets for this?

Yes - flat owners generally pay for repairs to their own flats.

(But as I mentioned, in this case it sounds like the management company have arranged buildings insurance that will cover the flats, so there might be an option of making an insurance claim.)

WIAWSNB

eddddy said:
Yes - flat owners generally pay for repairs to their own flats.

(But as I mentioned, in this case it sounds like the management company have arranged buildings insurance that will cover the flats, so there might be an option of making an insurance claim.)

Which is why I said to confirm what's in the buildings insurance, and then...
And the claim should include the OP's flat - tho' likely too late now - in which case the £5k excess will probably be a good deal. 
As I understand it, the excess on a claim is usually shared between all the flats in the building, just as one would for, say, the roof. Again, the T&Cs should make this clear. 
It's the fabric of the building, which needs to be maintained for the integrity of the whole building.

eddddy

WIAWSNB said:

Which is why I said to confirm what's in the buildings insurance, and then...

And the claim should include the OP's flat - tho' likely too late now - in which case the £5k excess will probably be a good deal. 
As I understand it, the excess on a claim is usually shared between all the flats in the building, just as one would for, say, the roof. Again, the T&Cs should make this clear. 
It's the fabric of the building, which needs to be maintained for the integrity of the whole building.

You're muddling a few things together. Taking a step back, a typical flat lease will say...

• 1) The flat owner (i.e. the leaseholder) is responsible for the plaster, decoration, flooring, woodwork etc in their flat

• 2) The freeholder is responsible for things like the roof, external walls, common areas, etc

Typically, the freeholder (or their management co) will arrange one single buildings insurance policy which covers all of the above - i.e. the stuff in list 1 and the stuff in list 2.

WIAWSNB said:

As I understand it, the excess on a claim is usually shared between all the flats in the building, just as one would for, say, the roof. Again, the T&Cs should make this clear. 

What T&Cs? (It certainly won't be mentioned in the insurance policy T&Cs.)

Very occasionally, a lease will specify who is responsible for paying an insurance claim excess - but that's unusual.



Where cases have gone to tribunal, the results have been mixed.

• Sometimes the tribunal have decided that the owners of the damaged flats have to pay the excess
• Sometimes the tribunal have decided that the excess should be paid from Service Charge funds (i.e. shared across all flat owners)

The tribunal decisions would be based on careful analysis of the wording of the lease, plus the facts of the case (maybe with an element of 'luck' as well).

WIAWSNB

I know we've had this chat before, and I do get what you are saying. But it would be unconscionable for a ManCo's buildings policy to not cover the above scenario. And a properly-run ManCo should have a maintenance/sink fund to cover such eventualities as premium excess. Yes, they could weigh up each case and decide, like all of us do at times, whether a claim is financially the best way forwards, but the cover should be there.

How many flats would need to be flooded from a single leak before the unfortunate occupants shout, "This ain't fair!"? 

I would suggest that the default position is that the block buildings policy covers this, and the individual flats then have their own contents policies to cover their possessions. 

In the only example I am personally aware of - in my bro's building - the FH sorted it all - the leak (a pin-hole in an original copper pipe), and the damage to the flat below. 

eddddy

WIAWSNB said:

But it would be unconscionable for a ManCo's buildings policy to not cover the above scenario.

I'm not sure what you mean.

It's clear from the OP's posts that the management company has building insurance which covers 'escape of water' with a £5k excess.

WIAWSNB said:

And a properly-run ManCo should have a maintenance/sink fund to cover such eventualities as premium excess. 

No - a management co must do whatever the lease (and law) requires them to do.

If the lease (and law) do not require them to pay the excess from Service Charge funds, it would be unlawful for them to do so.

Other leaseholders could take legal action against the management co, if they used service charge funds to pay for things that are not required by the lease (or law).


In general, if you don't like the terms documented in a lease - you shouldn't buy the property.

ReadySteadyPop

eddddy said:

WIAWSNB said:

But it would be unconscionable for a ManCo's buildings policy to not cover the above scenario.

I'm not sure what you mean.

It's clear from the OP's posts that the management company has building insurance which covers 'escape of water' with a £5k excess.

WIAWSNB said:

And a properly-run ManCo should have a maintenance/sink fund to cover such eventualities as premium excess. 

No - a management co must do whatever the lease (and law) requires them to do.

If the lease (and law) do not require them to pay the excess from Service Charge funds, it would be unlawful for them to do so.

Other leaseholders could take legal action against the management co, if they used service charge funds to pay for things that are not required by the lease (or law).


In general, if you don't like the terms documented in a lease - you shouldn't buy the property.

Excellent advice.