Neighbours flat has leaked into mine

cambb

Hi,

I live in a ground floor flat that i own and on the 1st floor is a guy who rents through a property rental company. 2 months ago when we had the real bad rain his roof/gutters leaked through his flat then into mine. They have since fixed the issue but my bedroom is quite badly damaged with plaster coming off and the carpet stained. I contacted the property company who he rents off and they have said we paid for the repairs to the roof therefore they are unwilling to fix my flat. Is that right and can i take this further and how? Thanks

WIAWSNB

Do you have contents insurance? Does it include Legal Protection?

Read the policy, and see what it covers.

Also read - request a copy if needed - the buildings insurance policy to which you contribute through your presumably annual charge.

How many flats in total in the building? And who is the Freeholder?

Catonthemoon

I think most reputable EA’s would step up and offer to pay for the remedial work in your flat. If they’re not however, they may claim that the damage existed prior to the water ingress event.

Have you taken photos? I’m sure you have, but make sure you gather as much evidence as possible prior to submitting any claim.

It might be worthwhile having a chat with the guy above (assuming you’re not arch enemies) - ask if you can take photos of the affected area in his flat…you will then be able to demonstrate how it impacted on your property. Good luck 🤞

GDB2222

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6662901/neighbours-flat-has-leaked-into-mine

Sadly, they are correct, as long as they were unaware of any defects to the roof before the flood. It's an accident, and (I know you won't want to hear this) they are not responsible for the initial flooding of your flat.

If they had left it for ages, so the damage got worse, they'd have been liable for that, but it sounds like they repaired it all quite quickly.

You need insurance for your flat and your belongings to cater for this sort of incident. Did your solicitor not explain this when you bought? What would happen if the whole place burnt down? Is there no insurance for your flat at all? If there is, then surely it should pick up the tab for this damage?

It's a bit strange that the upstairs flat is responsible for the roof. Is that what the leases say, and who is responsible for maintaining the building generally?

eddddy

In general, you can only claim for damage from somebody if you can show that they were negligent.

You haven't mentioned anything that makes it sound like the tenant, the property rental company, or the property company (management company?) have been negligent.

But perhaps you might have a claim, if

• The tenant knew there were problems with the roof and gutter which might result in leaks - but the tenant didn't report it. Then your claim for negligence would be against the tenant.

Or

• The tenant reported the roof and gutter problems to the rental company - but the rental company didn't report it to the property management company. Then your claim for negligence would be against the rental company.

Or

• The property management company knew about the roof and gutter problems but didn't do anything about it. Then your claim for negligence would be against the property Management company.

But all those things would be very hard to prove.

So you'll probably have to cover the cost of the damage yourself.

(There's also the possibility of making insurance claims - but based on what you've said, it doesn't sound like that would be successful.)

WIAWSNB

Cambb has no issue with the tenant - it has nowt to do with them. Cambb has no issue with the property co that rents/manages the flat above - it has nowt to do with them.

Cambb might have an issue with the Freeholder, to whom they contribute their %-age of the buildings insurance policy.

And this will come down to the terms of the buildings insurance policy.

Build Ins is generally concerned with the 'fabric' of the building, and this includes the floor/ceiling structures. Put it this way - if this had been a long term issue, unbeknownst to the flat dwellers until the floor/ceiling joists collapsed due to rot - who would cover this? Yes, the FH's buildings policy.

So the effective difference here is, the damage did not, afawk, affect the 'structure' of the property.

Another consideration is, how do you differentiate between 'buildings' and 'contents' insurance? The layman's standard offered by most insurance co's is, 'turn your property upside down, and anything that falls off is 'contents'. By this definition, ceilings are clearly 'buildings'.

The only actual example I know of like this is when an old copper pipe under my bro's flat's floor developed a leak for no discernable reason, and it took down a section of the lower flat's ceiling after a while. The LH, and the buildings insurance, made good everything.

Cambb, I'd have a chat with the tenant above to ask nicely if they happen to know whether the same outfit fixed the roof/gutters and sorted out the damage to their flat, and I'd ask the property man co for that flat the same Q.

If it was all sorted as one issue - leak and making cosmetically good - then why not you?

eddddy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952170#Comment_81952170

@WAIWSNB - you've posted a few times about water damage in flats. But TBH, it sounds like most of what you say is misguided.

Just to clarify some of your comments…

• The plaster in the OP's flat is almost certainly the OP's responsibility (and so is the OP's carpet). So the freeholder and/or management company are unlikely to get involved - because it's not their problem.

• Plaster in the OP's flat is part of the building. So it would be covered by buildings insurance.

• Carpets are generally considered to be part of the contents. So they would be covered by contents insurance.

• But insurance policies over cover specific events - it doesn't sound like one of those events has occurred in this case.

• You talk about water leaking from a copper pipe - that is classed as "escape of water". Rainwater leaking through a roof isn't classed as "escape of water" - so your anecdote about a leaking copper pipe is irrelevant.

• If somebody's negligence caused the damage - the negligent person is responsible for the cost of putting it right. (That could be the upstairs tenant, the rental company, the management company or anyone else.)

• You suggest that the freeholder might be liable in some way - that would only be the case if the freeholder had been negligent.

The OP suggests that the cause of problem was leaking roof and gutters. That sounds like a "lack of maintenance" issue or "gradual wear and tear" issue. Neither of those are covered by insurance policies.

It sounds like the management company repaired the roof and gutter without making an insurance claim - which tends to confirm that the issue wasn't covered by insurance.

The only scope for a successful insurance claim would be if the damage to the roof and gutters, plus the water ingress, were all caused by a single identifiable storm.

The OP would have to tell the insurers the date/time of that storm - and the insurers would check met office records for the area, to see if there was a storm at that date/time which was capable of causing damage to buildings.

Otherwise, it would be the OP's responsibility to arrange repairs to the plaster (and carpet), and to pay for them.

WIAWSNB

I know, Eddddy. My main point is to check the detail of the two policies.

And, if the guttering and damage to flat above was covered by the FH's policy, then why not the OP's?

Your two first clarifications re 'plaster' appear to contradict eachother?

Moral of story, tho' - if you have a LH flat, make sure you have contents insurance.

eddddy

WIAWSNB said

Moral of story, tho' - if you have a LH flat, make sure you have contents insurance.

No - not really.

The moral of the story is that if a roof or gutter leaks as a result of age / wear & tear / lack of maintenance - no insurance policy will cover the damage.

Your two first clarifications re 'plaster' appear to contradict eachother?

What do you think is contradictory?

The plaster in the flat is the leaseholder's responsibility.

Typically, there will be buildings insurance which covers the whole building. The 'whole building' includes the leaseholder's plaster (as well as all the other parts of the building - including the roof, walls, foundations etc.)

And, if the guttering and  damage to flat above was covered by the FH's policy, then why not the OP's?

Why do you think the guttering and damage to the flat above was covered by an insurance policy claim? The OP didn't say it was.

I think it's very unlikely that an insurance policy paid out for that work.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952732#Comment_81952732

Oh dear.

That's all presumption on this case.

I suggested the OP finds out what took place, and to check their insurance docs if they have it. You don't know, and I don't know, why the roof leaked, so that's why it matters to find out - it could be insurance-covered in some scenarios. And, if it isn't insurance covered, then the FH could be directly liable if they have demonstrably failed to maintain the property - you reckon the OP has no claim?

If the FH is 'responsible' for the OP's plaster, why aren't they covered here? A gutter and roof does not leak this significantly for no reason, so one can assume that either these structures were neglected, or the breach was caused by a completely unanticipated event like a storm. The FH and gawd respectively are liable - why should the OP not be covered by this?

I still find your plaster comments contradictory; "The plaster in the OP's flat is almost certainly the OP's responsibility. So the freeholder and/or management company are unlikely to get involved - because it's not their problem. Plaster in the OP's flat is part of the building. So it would be covered by buildings insurance."

And, why is contents insurance not a good call to have in such an event, where some parts - the painting and carpets - might not otherwise be covered?

eddddy

WIAWSNB said

I suggested the OP finds out what took place, and to check their insurance docs if they have it. You don't know, and I don't know, why the roof leaked, so that's why it matters to find out - it could be insurance-covered in some scenarios. And, if it isn't insurance covered, then the FH could be directly liable if they have demonstrably failed to maintain the property - you reckon the OP has no claim?

Ok - so now you're finally agreeing with what I explained way back in the thread. As I explained in quite a lot of detail…

• 1) If the OP can prove that somebody has been negligent - e.g. the freeholder, the tenant upstairs, the rental company, the management company, etc - the OP can try to claim the cost of repairs from the negligent party

• 2) If the roof was well maintained but damaged by a specific single storm, that should be covered by insurance.

• 3) if the damage was a result of age, gradual wear & tear or poor maintenance it won't be covered by insurance

(For completeness, I didn't mention that if the roof was damaged by things like an explosion, aircraft collision, vehicle collision, falling tree or falling lamp post - the resulting damage would be covered by buildings insurance. But I think the OP would have mentioned it, if one of those things happened.)

(Also for completeness, a few insurance companies like Hiscox offer "all risks" comprehensive home insurance policies, which might pay out in other situations. Those policies are very rare, very expensive and targeted at 'high net worth' people with high value, non-standard homes. To keep things simple, I've assumed that the OP doesn't have that type of policy.)