Flooded from Above

[ecs]

My flat was flooded from above due to a faulty washing machine and bad plumbing. This happened on the 23rd Dec and the insurers are still squabbling over who pays for what. I think the repair works to the building stuff (walls and wooden floors) are due to start in a weeks time, all going well. The owner of the property above only just contacted his insurers yesterday regarding replacing my carpets as they're not covered by buildings insurance (as per every insurance policy ever - so it shouldn't have been a surprise to him that he was liable).

So since the 23rd Dec, I've been sleeping on a sofa/mattress on the floor of my kitchen diner as my two bedrooms are out of action due to no carpet and being a bit of a tip. This has been a faff as I'm constantly needing to move stuff about to cook and things. So, I'm not going to suger coat it, can I claim any compensation for this? The washing machine above was 15 years old and hadn't been looked at since the place was converted - I think the owner has been pretty negligent.

[MrV]

ecs said:

My flat was flooded from above due to a faulty washing machine and bad plumbing. This happened on the 23rd Dec and the insurers are still squabbling over who pays for what. I think the repair works to the building stuff (walls and wooden floors) are due to start in a weeks time, all going well. The owner of the property above only just contacted his insurers yesterday regarding replacing my carpets as they're not covered by buildings insurance (as per every insurance policy ever - so it shouldn't have been a surprise to him that he was liable).

So since the 23rd Dec, I've been sleeping on a sofa/mattress on the floor of my kitchen diner as my two bedrooms are out of action due to no carpet and being a bit of a tip. This has been a faff as I'm constantly needing to move stuff about to cook and things. So, I'm not going to suger coat it, can I claim any compensation for this? The washing machine above was 15 years old and hadn't been looked at since the place was converted - I think the owner has been pretty negligent.

First off have you spoken to your insurers ? if the place is uninhabitable then you should have been offered alternative accommodation,although why having no carpets makes it unfit to live in Im not sure unless by being a bit of a tip means the ceilings are hanging down

Not sure why you say the owner has been negligent, the washing machine leaked ,he has got the insurance company involved ,he might be a bit of a cock for not mentioning your carpets but again he genuinely might not have realised he had to mention it to them.

[ecs]

I have - as the bathroom and kitchen appliances weren't damaged no alternative accommodation can be provided.

The owner of the property above is an amateur landlord and I've had to deal with everything through the management company. This adds even more complexity because I'm not allowed the contact details of the owner and the management company are incompetent (I've had to get solicitors involved in the past because they haven't maintained the building properly and we as the leaseholders have a bunch of disputes going through the Ombudsman at the moment).

I think that if you're a landlord then you should maintain your BTL, if you don't and it fks up someone else's home then you've been negligent.

[Paul Drawmer]

I've never known anybody who maintains their washing machine. Do you think he should have had it serviced?

[tex200]

Surely your contents insurance will be taking care of your carpets? Or am I missing something?

Upstairs insurance is not likely to be paying for your stuff - unless the washing machine had been leaking for a while AND upstairs were aware of it AND they had chosen to ignore it.

Many years ago I was that upstairs person (leaky plumbing under the bath) . Because I dealt with it as soon as I was made aware of the problem, my insurance co fixed my flat's damage and they told downstairs that they had to claim on their own insurance.

[ecs]

Paul Drawmer said:

I've never known anybody who maintains their washing machine. Do you think he should have had it serviced?

He probably should have taken a quick look at the plumbing sometime between now and the previous 15 years.

[ecs]

tex200 said:

Surely your contents insurance will be taking care of your carpets? Or am I missing something?

Upstairs insurance is not likely to be paying for your stuff - unless the washing machine had been leaking for a while AND upstairs were aware of it AND they had chosen to ignore it.

Many years ago I was that upstairs person (leaky plumbing under the bath) . Because I dealt with it as soon as I was made aware of the problem, my insurance co fixed my flat's damage and they told downstairs that they had to claim on their own insurance.

That's not how it works now - the owner of the flat above is under the duty to ensure that water doesn't escape from their flat and flood mine.

[northwest monkey]

ecs said:

Paul Drawmer said:

I've never known anybody who maintains their washing machine. Do you think he should have had it serviced?

He probably should have taken a quick look at the plumbing sometime between now and the previous 15 years.

Eh?

It could be fine one day & leaking the next so what good would that be?

Plumbing unfortunately doesn't come with a wear indicator like tyres or brake pads.

[silentbrown]

ecs said:

He probably should have taken a quick look at the plumbing sometime between now and the previous 15 years.

What, exactly, would he have seen with a 'quick look'? Was it leaking for a long time?

You should claim off your contents insurance and move on. A broken washing machine doesn't mean negligence.

[Mr E]

ecs said:

That's not how it works now - the owner of the flat above is under the duty to ensure that water doesn't escape from their flat and flood mine.

Not really, no.
If there's a problem and the don't attend to it, and that problem results in damage then there's negligence and they're on the hook.

If something just fails, then it's why you have insurance. See "tiles falling on cars thread".

[andye30m3]

ecs said:

The owner of the property above is an amateur landlord and I've had to deal with everything through the management company. This adds even more complexity because I'm not allowed the contact details of the owner and the management company are incompetent

Presumably the buildings insurance is arranged through the management company and thats why it has to be dealt with through them, they probably wouldn't talk to the guy above anyway.

Not sure what being an amateur landlord has to do with it could have happened to anyone.

[tex200]

ecs said:

That's not how it works now - the owner of the flat above is under the duty to ensure that water doesn't escape from their flat and flood mine.

Pretty sure it still works that way.

But anyway your insurance company are the best people to deal with this situation. What's their take on it?

[ecs]

The claim for the carpet is below my excess so it's up to me to sort. Management company can't give me the details of the owner and are disinterested in assisting. Guess I'm paying for it all myself.

[Vipers]

northwest monkey said:

ecs said:

Paul Drawmer said:

I've never known anybody who maintains their washing machine. Do you think he should have had it serviced?

He probably should have taken a quick look at the plumbing sometime between now and the previous 15 years.

Eh?

It could be fine one day & leaking the next so what good would that be?

Plumbing unfortunately doesn't come with a wear indicator like tyres or brake pads.

Correct, who has theirs checked. We noticed a puddle once, quick check showed a rubber pipe had been rubbing on the ballast concrete block (piss poor design).

If I had checked it the week before, would have found noting.

[superlightr]

ecs said:

The claim for the carpet is below my excess so it's up to me to sort. Management company can't give me the details of the owner and are disinterested in assisting. Guess I'm paying for it all myself.

The water leak from upstairs is the responsibility of that flat. Its trespass (of the water)
They are responsible for the excess or replacement of your carpet or damage and inconvenience. What if you had no contents insurance?

The building insurance will have been arranged and is the responsibility of the managing agents to arrange. Generally carpets are fixed and covered under BI. Ask for written confirmation from them.

If the managing agents of the block wont give you the owners details of the flat above do a land registry search but also put a letter through the door of the flat above listing your claim & requiring payment.

Work out what the property would rent for each month claim for say 1/3 of that for the loss and inconvenience for the time you are inconvenienced from the flat owner.

If they dont play ball start a money claim on line.

Edited by superlightr on Friday 5th February 14:14

[ecs]

Thanks for the advice - have spoken with the management company regarding what's covered by buildings and what's covered by contents. It seems like it's this age old rule that carpets are contents and wooden flooring is buildings. It's something I've heard a number of people say before when they've ended up in the same situation as me. I think insurers like to say the word 'movable fixture' because in the olden days carpets were just big rugs which covered the floorboards.

Anyway, I've got the number and email address of the owner above now so I've written to him saying 'oi, I need a new carpet'. I've got legal cover from my contents insurance so I've opened up a claim with them, just need to see if they'll take it on though. Otherwise money claim it is.

Also, to those who still think the owner above is not responsible, why is he paying the excess for the buildings insurance claim for the damage to my property? I don't think it's that responsible to fit a washing machine and just wait for it to fall to bits and then replace it - I know that's what a lot of us do; but if you're in a building where it's possible to flood the guy downstairs then you should probably keep in mind that you could be liable for their losses and damages.

[RYH64E]

Our first washing machine lasted over 10 years, every one since has worn out much quicker but I've only ever replaced one when it's stopped working. I've never replaced a washing machine as a precautionary measure due to worries that it might start leaking.

Over the years I've read many threads on here about claiming for damage caused by falling trees, flying tiles, even escaping gazebos, the gist has been that, unless you can show that the other party has been negligent, you claim on your own insurance and accept that st happens, that's why you have insurance.

[surveyor]

There are some very strange ideas on this thread.

The OP is wrong in his assumption that the landlord above is automatically negligent because water leaked.

[superlightr]

surveyor said:

There are some very strange ideas on this thread.

The OP is wrong in his assumption that the landlord above is automatically negligent because water leaked.

he does not have to be negligent. His is still liable under trespass.

op Carpets should be covered under BI - ask to see the policy and the wording if it excludes.

[surveyor]

superlightr said:

surveyor said:

There are some very strange ideas on this thread.

The OP is wrong in his assumption that the landlord above is automatically negligent because water leaked.

he does not have to be negligent. His is still liable under trespass.

op Carpets should be covered under BI - ask to see the policy and the wording if it excludes.

It's an argument that I've never heard of except in the case of surface water (a reservoir). Do you have any case history?