Leak from my flat damaged flat below

WIAWSNB

It is my understanding that, unless you were negligent, which you were demonstrably not, then you are not liable.
You seem to have a right piece of work in charge of the FH.
So I'd narrow responses down to a couple of Q's to this person; "Was this leak due to negligence on my part?". And, when they concede, "No.", then "On what basis am I liable for the repair?"
Don't tell them - ask them these Q's. Make them answer.
Repeat an nauseam.
And similar to the flat owner, if needed.
Then get contents insurance asap, and add Legal Protection for future protection: ~£50 + £25ish.

('Negligence' would include things like being aware of an issue, but doing nothing about it. Or DIYing an incompetent repair. Or getting Fred down the local to fit a bathroom for you cash-in-hand - that sort of stuff.)

subjecttocontract

It seems from the info you have posted that your freeholder does not understand the rules. Just because they are a freeholder doesn't mean they will know them and clearly in this case, they dont. If your buildings insurance, paid thru your service charges does not include water leak cover then that is likely to be a serious omission by your freeholder. 

WIAWSNB

Take the FH's position to its logical conclusion; say you are personally liable for this damage as she maintains, but you were not negligent - which is the case. 

A burst pipe in your top floor flat caused 100's of gallons of water to course down below, taking out the ceilings and floors and electrics and boilers and TVs and sofas and the odd pet in 5 flats, and even part of the physical infrastructure of the building, at a total repair cost of £2 million pounds sterling. 

Would you be liable? 

If the correct answer is 'Non' - which I believe it is - then why should you be liable if it's 'only' one ceiling? 

gm0

Common practice is often this

Decor of the leaked into flat.  Is contents insurance of the leaked into not the leaker.
Leaker fixes their problem with their appliance - washer outlet, toilet valve, soil stack joint, shower cartridge (all of which are common causes - why oh why is boxing them in a thing).

Leaked into can claim against leaker if provably negligent.  (Difficult).  But possible in some circumstances with the casual serial offender.

There is ALSO often a difference between "demised" plumbing inside the flat. And communal soil stacks, manifolds, water distibrution outside the flats. Communal  Fixing leaks from - say - communal soil stack joints - would be freeholder and man co/agent to source, and fix and pay for. Once detected. 
Fixing your toilet valve on your toilet inside your flat. Which you are free to update as you like. Is on you. 

Often you don't know what the problem is without working up the building opening up boxed in toilets, flush in wall shower cartridges and such like.  Eliminating the normal causes.

Often the investigation and plumbing bills will move between the leaseholder with the opening up and the leak and the manco - depending upon what is found.  We had this with opening up a bathroom and eventually finding a communal soil stack fault.  And we have also had shower situations where the flat below chose whehter or not to go self insure - lick of paint - dump that ikea rug.  Or claim on contents policy for the damage (at impact to premiums).

So it depends.

It is unwise to be overly confrontational or certain of legalities without the site plan and lease in front of you.

It is also unwise for the buildings insurance on a larger block - to be bid up by bs low value claims.  As this cost  is recharged to the leaseholders in many cases.  So the reduced premium from large excess is in the interests of leaseholders.  It causes this problem of course.  Buildings is for rebuilding, major fire and flood, not blocked toilet valves inside people's flats

That's my 2p

subjecttocontract

gm0 said:

Common practice is often this

Decor of the leaked into flat.  Is contents insurance of the leaked into not the leaker.
Leaker fixes their problem with their appliance - washer outlet, toilet valve, soil stack joint, shower cartridge (all of which are common causes - why oh why is boxing them in a thing).

Leaked into can claim against leaker if provably negligent.  (Difficult).  But possible in some circumstances with the casual serial offender.

There is ALSO often a difference between "demised" plumbing inside the flat. And communal soil stacks, manifolds, water distibrution outside the flats. Communal  Fixing leaks from - say - communal soil stack joints - would be freeholder and man co/agent to source, and fix and pay for. Once detected. 
Fixing your toilet valve on your toilet inside your flat. Which you are free to update as you like. Is on you. 

Often you don't know what the problem is without working up the building opening up boxed in toilets, flush in wall shower cartridges and such like.  Eliminating the normal causes.

Often the investigation and plumbing bills will move between the leaseholder with the opening up and the leak and the manco - depending upon what is found.  We had this with opening up a bathroom and eventually finding a communal soil stack fault.  And we have also had shower situations where the flat below chose whehter or not to go self insure - lick of paint - dump that ikea rug.  Or claim on contents policy for the damage (at impact to premiums).

So it depends.

It is unwise to be overly confrontational or certain of legalities without the site plan and lease in front of you.

It is also unwise for the buildings insurance on a larger block - to be bid up by bs low value claims.  As this cost  is recharged to the leaseholders in many cases.  So the reduced premium from large excess is in the interests of leaseholders.  It causes this problem of course.  Buildings is for rebuilding, major fire and flood, not blocked toilet valves inside people's flats

That's my 2p

Thats interesting BUT, it also depends on the wording of the lease. If the lease requires the service charge account to provide buildings insurance for the leaseholders its not acceptable for the freeholders to take out insurance with a large excess . This can often be challenged when making a claim and the excess paid by the leaseholder claimed back from the freeholders who have not done their job correctly.

gm0

Who says what is excessive. Contextual to site, construction, claims history. 

Lessees would do well to understand all that - before attempting to cut off their nose to spite their face.   Lower excess. Higher premium. Recharged to them.

Or triggering legal opinion or defense costs which then get recharged. SOF directors will usually take advice on anything controversial or a dispute - in part to avoid breaking their own director indemnity insurance i.e. have to.
And this ends up as costs for exactly the same group of leaseholders / SOF shareholders wearing one hat or the other.  With an external freeholder clearly disputes about legitimate recharge have a purely lease centric character. And the charge dispute / tribunal processes apply first.

The appropriate "level" (total insured) will vary wildly by site size and materials/rebuilding costs, listed etc.  And excesses also vary a lot reflective of that scale issue.  

I am a bit unsure where the idea "large excess" = instant malpractice arises.  But clearly opinions vary and it may occur - situational to sites and history and leases.  I just haven't seen one of those.  We repay buildings on our service charge. And I have done in all the flats family have lived in. Other styles may exist.

So clearly there is no general "correct" answer you can rely on. It's why I said "common practice often is" not here is the answer 100%

My take remains:

Don't expect communal structure insurance to cover demised appliances and plumbing fixes. (So *know* what that is).  It would be mad for lessees on 999 years to have refurb rights (and obligations) on their kitchens and bathrooms and for the plumbing in them to magically be communal.  So it usually is not.  Your risk. Your liability to others (if negligent). Your cost to fix.  

Don't expect communal buildings to routinely cover damaged decor (from the above).  The buildings content split and "who had the non-negligent incident damage" applies  This feels very unfair to the repeatedly leaked upon. A

As their contents policy costs go up. For something they didn't do. Because gravity.  Unless the other leaseholder was negligent. Or the fault was to communal structure.  Which VERY often is not the case.  For a small leak. Many people dry it out. Lick of ceiling paint. Dump a rug. Move on with life. No claim.

I wonder do you have a diary entry for proactively replacing shower cartridges before they leak.  Some might.  But my experience of flat dwelling and the wave of leaks across the blocks - is that few do.

Do expect it to cover fixing faults to communal structure - and in those situations it may very well ALSO cover investigation costs, make good costs for chopping at demised spaces decor to find and to get to the fault.  So the individual whose bathroom was opened up is made whole by the community.  (A bill repaid by manco self insured or via claim). Usually lessees would rather choose their own trades.

Often mancos take a "check demised first" approach. Which given the behaviour of dishwashers washing machines, showers and toilets vs fixed plumbing and the likely odds.  Is entirely rational.  

And the leaseholder is less mad (with them) if a plumber they themselves control and hired is starting to drill holes in decor to investigate water sources.