Rights question, rented flat is water damaged by flat above
Discussion
A friend of mine owns a flat that he leases out, there are 2 flats in the building and the owner above (flat also leased out) owns the freehold with my friend having the leasehold of his flat. There is 'landlords' building insurance for both flats existing that my friend is looking into what that would cover. He does not have specific landlords insurance in addition to this.
The flat above had a leaking boiler which has damaged the flat below, what you would expect being the ceiling, wall, carpets (maybe floor). The may be damage to a futon from the Tennant too.
The tenants notified my friend there was water coming in, my friend notified the flat owner above & he has said the leak has now been fixed.
The problem is that he is not taking responsibility for the damage caused. His claim is that the tenants of my friends flat should of notified that the leak was there earlier.
The citizens advice was not very helpful. Is there a useful statement somewhere that we can use to help encourage the landlord above to take responsibility?
The flat above had a leaking boiler which has damaged the flat below, what you would expect being the ceiling, wall, carpets (maybe floor). The may be damage to a futon from the Tennant too.
The tenants notified my friend there was water coming in, my friend notified the flat owner above & he has said the leak has now been fixed.
The problem is that he is not taking responsibility for the damage caused. His claim is that the tenants of my friends flat should of notified that the leak was there earlier.
The citizens advice was not very helpful. Is there a useful statement somewhere that we can use to help encourage the landlord above to take responsibility?
gavgavgav said:
A friend of mine owns a flat that he leases out, there are 2 flats in the building and the owner above (flat also leased out) owns the freehold with my friend having the leasehold of his flat. There is 'landlords' building insurance for both flats existing that my friend is looking into what that would cover. He does not have specific landlords insurance in addition to this.
The flat above had a leaking boiler which has damaged the flat below, what you would expect being the ceiling, wall, carpets (maybe floor). The may be damage to a futon from the Tennant too.
The tenants notified my friend there was water coming in, my friend notified the flat owner above & he has said the leak has now been fixed.
The problem is that he is not taking responsibility for the damage caused. His claim is that the tenants of my friends flat should of notified that the leak was there earlier.
The citizens advice was not very helpful. Is there a useful statement somewhere that we can use to help encourage the landlord above to take responsibility?
I've literally gone through this as the owner of the upstairs flat.The flat above had a leaking boiler which has damaged the flat below, what you would expect being the ceiling, wall, carpets (maybe floor). The may be damage to a futon from the Tennant too.
The tenants notified my friend there was water coming in, my friend notified the flat owner above & he has said the leak has now been fixed.
The problem is that he is not taking responsibility for the damage caused. His claim is that the tenants of my friends flat should of notified that the leak was there earlier.
The citizens advice was not very helpful. Is there a useful statement somewhere that we can use to help encourage the landlord above to take responsibility?
Having taken advice from many different places I am confident in saying that as long as the owner of the upstairs flat was not negligent, so they did all they could to stop the leak within a timely matter of being informed of it - in the case where a leak was not visible from inside the flat - then they are not responsible for the damage to contents and building of flat below.
Building insurance should cover any damage to the flat (wallpaper, paint, plaster, any structural damage) and the tenants' contents insurance should cover their contents.
To add extra info, I am a leasehold owner, as is the owner of the flat below, the one below is rented out, I live in mine. Therefore we had a shared building insurance provider as that is included in our service charge.
My flat was leaking for 2 months but downstairs was empty and the owner didn't visit once in 2 months, lettings agent didn't say anything, new tenants didn't question the peeling wallpaper and paint when they moved in, lettings agent again didn't say anything, when the tenants finally realised there was a leak I had it fixed within 6 hours. Downstairs owner then tries to tell me it's all my fault. Jog on.
Edited by nurseholliday on Tuesday 29th September 15:12
Just been through a very similar scenario as the owner of the lower flat.
Escape of water does not imply negligence, and therefore there may not be liability for the owner of the leaking boiler. In other words, unless the boiler owner has been negligent, it's "bad luck" for all parties affected.
It is common practice for a LL's buildings policy to cover the structure of the individual flats (walls, plastering, pipework, etc.) So, your friend will need to confirm what is covered by this policy and initiate a claim (if appropriate). Just be aware that a property manager on a shared policy may be keen to get the lowest premium, and this may mean a large excess.
Buildings insurance does not usually cover soft furnishings such as carpets, so if any carpet has been damaged then this is likely to be an uninsured loss (if your friend doesn't have landlord's contents insurance).
As regards tenants contents, the tenants would need to claim on their insurance for their loss.
Escape of water does not imply negligence, and therefore there may not be liability for the owner of the leaking boiler. In other words, unless the boiler owner has been negligent, it's "bad luck" for all parties affected.
It is common practice for a LL's buildings policy to cover the structure of the individual flats (walls, plastering, pipework, etc.) So, your friend will need to confirm what is covered by this policy and initiate a claim (if appropriate). Just be aware that a property manager on a shared policy may be keen to get the lowest premium, and this may mean a large excess.
Buildings insurance does not usually cover soft furnishings such as carpets, so if any carpet has been damaged then this is likely to be an uninsured loss (if your friend doesn't have landlord's contents insurance).
As regards tenants contents, the tenants would need to claim on their insurance for their loss.
eatcustard said:
Found this on a legal site (I personally have no legal knowledge)
Flat above is liable irrespective of whether the flat below has insurance cover or not. If water has escaped from the above property and caused damage to another property then they ultimately liable.
Must be a legal site where they publish the incorrect answers given by failed law students. Flat above is liable irrespective of whether the flat below has insurance cover or not. If water has escaped from the above property and caused damage to another property then they ultimately liable.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Must be a legal site where they publish the incorrect answers given by failed law students.
I'm guessing it was this site...http://www.thelawforum.co.uk/leak-flats-responsibi...
The poor poster on that forum is likely to have believed the poster giving the advice.
Thanks for the responses so far, my friend has read them all. Looks like it is one of those situations where what feels to be the 'right thing' in our society doesn't match the legal association of responsibility.
Luckily for my friend is that the damage is quite minimal.
Upside is he may join pistonheads now!
Luckily for my friend is that the damage is quite minimal.
Upside is he may join pistonheads now!
gavgavgav said:
Looks like it is one of those situations where what feels to be the 'right thing' in our society doesn't match the legal association of responsibility.
I think the law has it right. With a few legal exceptions, you are not responsible for misfortunes that befall other people when you yourself have done nothing wrong.TwigtheWonderkid said:
eatcustard said:
Found this on a legal site (I personally have no legal knowledge)
Flat above is liable irrespective of whether the flat below has insurance cover or not. If water has escaped from the above property and caused damage to another property then they ultimately liable.
Must be a legal site where they publish the incorrect answers given by failed law students. Flat above is liable irrespective of whether the flat below has insurance cover or not. If water has escaped from the above property and caused damage to another property then they ultimately liable.
andburg said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
eatcustard said:
Found this on a legal site (I personally have no legal knowledge)
Flat above is liable irrespective of whether the flat below has insurance cover or not. If water has escaped from the above property and caused damage to another property then they ultimately liable.
Must be a legal site where they publish the incorrect answers given by failed law students. Flat above is liable irrespective of whether the flat below has insurance cover or not. If water has escaped from the above property and caused damage to another property then they ultimately liable.
I used to own a second floor flat, which I rented out. A pipe leaked in my flat, and water damaged the walls and ceiling of the kitchen in the flat below.
I paid to have the damage put right (some plastering and painting). I don't know if I was obliged to or not, I did it without question as it seemed like the right thing to do.
I paid to have the damage put right (some plastering and painting). I don't know if I was obliged to or not, I did it without question as it seemed like the right thing to do.
Gareth1974 said:
I used to own a second floor flat, which I rented out. A pipe leaked in my flat, and water damaged the walls and ceiling of the kitchen in the flat below.
I paid to have the damage put right (some plastering and painting). I don't know if I was obliged to or not, I did it without question as it seemed like the right thing to do.
What if a fire had started in your flat, an electical fault, no fault of yours, and destroyed the whole block. Would you have paid for the market value of everyone else's flat? If not, why not. Both situations seem very similar. I paid to have the damage put right (some plastering and painting). I don't know if I was obliged to or not, I did it without question as it seemed like the right thing to do.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What if a fire had started in your flat, an electical fault, no fault of yours, and destroyed the whole block. Would you have paid for the market value of everyone else's flat? If not, why not. Both situations seem very similar.
I know when a fire started in my neighbours garden and spread to mine my insurance company said that he was not liable as he had not been negligent.I argued successfully that he had been negligent, but that would seem to support the view that unless you are negligent you are not responsible for the affect on others.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff