PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Leak from my flat into flat below
Comments
-
richdeniro wrote: »Due to the letting agent being so difficult I am tempted to leave out the goodwill gesture and just reply with:
Hi There
Due to the leak being an accident and beyond my control I am not negligent and so am not liable for the insurance claim.
Kind regards.
Any thoughts?
You could just ignore them. If there isn't a contents insurance claim then I don't know why the letting agency is saying you will have to make a claim on your insurance. If it's going to be a "very expensive" repair then let the leaseholder below raise a claim with the communal buildings insurance policy.0 -
It doesn't matter how many times you say the OP is liable, legally he is not because it was an accident. I don't need to think about it or compare the OP's situation with a car accident. You're comparing apples with oranges.
Its not, it does't matter if it was accidental or deliberate the OP property (his pipes) caused damage to his neighbour property. He is responsible. It might be that the service charge covers the excess, but it certainly won't be all down to the poor sod who's flat has been damaged.
https://www.lease-advice.org/article/water-is-leaking-from-my-neighbours-flat-and-damaging-mine-who-should-pay-for-it/#
"The excess on buildings insurance will either be recoverable from the party responsible for the leak or all leaseholders through the service charge depending on whether it is a “fault based claim” and on the wording of the lease."
As I said right at the start OP and the owner of the flat downstairs need to speak to the managing agent.
Because it is well established letting agents know nothing about property.You could just ignore them. If there isn't a contents insurance claim then I don't know why the letting agency is saying you will have to make a claim on your insurance. If it's going to be a "very expensive" repair then let the leaseholder below raise a claim with the communal buildings insurance policy.0 -
Soundgirlrocks wrote: »Contents insurance will not cover plaster/paint repairs etc which is what OP said was damaged.
The damage originated from the OP's property (their poorly maintained pipes) therefor they are responsible for the excess - think about it as if it were a car accident. Car A is sat at traffic lights, Car B hits Car A because their breaks failed, Car B is responsible for the accident. Car B's insurance would ultimately pay the excess on Car A's policy (it might be car A pays and then their insurance claims it back from B on A's behalf).
Ultimately OP could be difficult and it would be for the owner of the flat downstairs to take them to small claims court to claim the excess back but cheaper and simpler to pay it now.
What?! That's not how car insurance works at all.
My insurance would pay for anything my fault. The other party's insurance would pay for the whole thing if it was their fault. How would an insurance company price for whatever idiots may drive into their policyholder and cost them thousands?0 -
Soundgirlrocks wrote: »Its not, it does't matter if it was accidental or deliberate the OP property (his pipes) caused damage to his neighbour property. He is responsible. It might be that the service charge covers the excess, but it certainly won't be all down to the poor sod who's flat has been damaged.
https://www.lease-advice.org/article/water-is-leaking-from-my-neighbours-flat-and-damaging-mine-who-should-pay-for-it/#
"The excess on buildings insurance will either be recoverable from the party responsible for the leak or all leaseholders through the service charge depending on whether it is a “fault based claim” and on the wording of the lease."
Did you read the whole article you linked to?0 -
richdeniro wrote: »Due to the letting agent being so difficult I am tempted to leave out the goodwill gesture and just reply with:
Hi There
Due to the leak being an accident and beyond my control I am not negligent and so am not liable for the insurance claim.
Kind regards.
Any thoughts?
Well, I'd start it "Dear Sirs" rather than "Hi There" and perhaps word it
"Unfortunately, the leak was caused by an accident, and not as a result of any negligence on my part. As such, I am not liable for the damage and the tenant or landlord of the flat will need to to make a claim on their own insurance. "All posts are my personal opinion, not formal advice Always get proper, professional advice (particularly about anything legal!)0 -
Did you read the whole article you linked to?
Yes I read the whole article. It could be argued that OP is negligent for not maintaining the plumbing in their property. (Just as with the car analogy if owner of the car hasn't maintained their breaks)
I would be interested why you are so adamant that the OP has no responsibility just because the damage wasn't deliberate.0 -
I have had a letting agent claim that you are not just liable if negligence can be proved - you have a legal duty of care to prevent escape of water .... but then a search on google brings this up:
No liability for escape of water from a cracked pipe (Court of Appeal)
Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal).
There was no liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (or otherwise in nuisance or negligence) where water escaped from a cracked pipe under a block of flats and caused damage to neighbouring property.
NOTE ADDED 21/11/2003: The House of Lords has upheld this decision, and restated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. For more information, see the Legal Update, No liability for escape of water from a cracked pipe (House of Lords).0 -
starving_artist wrote: »I have had a letting agent claim that you are not just liable if negligence can be proved - you have a legal duty of care to prevent escape of water .... but then a search on google brings this up:
The cases you linked are all based on the legal principle called 'the rule in Rylands v Fletcher'.
This rule says that if you keep something dangerous on your property (such as gas or chemicals and so on), you will be liable if it escapes and harms someone. Without that person needing to prove any sort of negligence.
This isn't really applicable to the Op's situation. Water isn't hazardous. In the Transco v Stockport case you mentioned Transco had a go at suing Stockport council when a council mains water pipe burst and damaged Transco's gas pipe, but failed.0 -
Soundgirlrocks wrote: »Yes I read the whole article. It could be argued that OP is negligent for not maintaining the plumbing in their property. (Just as with the car analogy if owner of the car hasn't maintained their breaks)
I would be interested why you are so adamant that the OP has no responsibility just because the damage wasn't deliberate.
Not really. You don't MOT the water pipes in your home for starters nor was the pipe visible to the OP to see that it was leaking because it was underneath the bathtub. It's not like faulty car brakes where you can feel they've become spongy but choose to do SFA about it and carry on driving around regardless. Once the OP was alerted to the problem (s)he sorted it out so therefore wasn't negligent.
The article you linked to says the upstairs leaseholder would be at fault if it can be proved (s)he was negligent and there is nothing in the OP to suggest that richdinero was negligent. It was just an unforeseen accident. It's a common misconception that just because a leak originates in your flat that you are automatically responsible for the cost of repairing any damage.
In any case it's got !!!!!! all to do with the letting agent and the OP shouldn't be coerced into handing over money for the repair. The leaseholder below should be the one to raise a claim (see link already provided by edddy above). The excess will then either be paid by the leaseholder who raises the claim or will be split between all the leaseholders. If the insurers want to try and prove the OP was negligent that's down to them not the letting agent.0 -
Had a reply from the Estate Agent with the following having sent them a couple of links with my last email:
From reading the information you have emailed me it would appear that the body of text refers to a tenant being asked to pay for damage caused by a leak into their own property. Not from a leak from someone else’s property.
From what I have read you are still liable for the repairs to the ceiling not the landlord of the property we manage.
We will seek legal advice as well as speaking to the Citizen advice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards