Flooded from Above
Discussion
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.The OP is wrong in his assumption that the landlord above is automatically negligent because water leaked.
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.The OP is wrong in his assumption that the landlord above is automatically negligent because water leaked.
op Carpets should be covered under BI - ask to see the policy and the wording if it excludes.
We had a very similar situation 2 years ago at my father in laws flat. His place was badly damaged by a shower leaking from upstairs. His insurers picked up the tab, when I spoke to them they were very clear that the owners of the flat upstairs were not liable and that their insurance company would robustly deny any claim, even though the owners of the flat had previously been made aware of the leak. The total cost to my FiL's insurers was well over £25k.
After my discussion with the insurers I clarified via my property and property litigation lawyers (they do lots of work for me in my day job), they agreed with the insurance company.
In terms of Trespass, I don't think there is a case, see Rylands vs Fletcher for similar case law where the diversion of the water impacting a 3rd party was not deliberate. Traspass by water is more an issue related to land holdings and water management, eg developer altering levels and causing flooding by run off etc.
If the leak is a one off event, then the neighbour is also unlikely to be found liable under "Nuisance" legislation.
If the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the leaking pipework then it may be a different matter, but the chances are he won't be.
Edited by blueg33 on Saturday 6th February 20:26
superlightr said:
we have different views on this. Im confident that under the law of trespass the op is likely to win for damages the water leak caused to him ie uninsured losses.
IANAL are you?My lawyers would disagree with you. Did you look at the case I referred to? There are quite a few others around too.
superlightr said:
we have different views on this. Im confident that under the law of trespass the op is likely to win for damages the water leak caused to him ie uninsured losses.
Any chance of any background on your confidence.I've not come across anything to suggest that your position is right, and having done a little digging around I've not come across anything to suggest that trespass is an angle.
Nuisance could be. But only if the upstairs was dong something antisocial, like storing water extensively (as opposed to normal header//heating tanks).
ecs said:
Doesn't seem right that his bad plumbing can f
k my place up to the tune of ~£10k and I'm the one who's liable for the repairs though.
I understand your point and it doesn't seem 'fair', but that's why you have insurance, so that your insurance company pays and not you. If you think about it, it doesn't really matter who's insurance company pays providing you're covered.k my place up to the tune of ~£10k and I'm the one who's liable for the repairs though.Yes - I think I was mistaken on this one 
there would need to be some negligence.
perhaps the question should be made as to how the OP could go about arguing that the flat above was negligent in allowing the water leak.
OP said it was bad plumbing and a washing machine how do you know this? -
Did the flat above have a new wm installed? perhaps the fitters were negligent etc, did the owner install it himself? is he a qualified as a plumber? etc some of the questions I would be asking and perhaps putting forward.
there would need to be some negligence. perhaps the question should be made as to how the OP could go about arguing that the flat above was negligent in allowing the water leak.
OP said it was bad plumbing and a washing machine how do you know this? -
Did the flat above have a new wm installed? perhaps the fitters were negligent etc, did the owner install it himself? is he a qualified as a plumber? etc some of the questions I would be asking and perhaps putting forward.
Edited by superlightr on Saturday 6th February 23:19
Edited by superlightr on Saturday 6th February 23:20
Edited by superlightr on Saturday 6th February 23:27
superlightr said:
blueg33 said:
IANAL are you?
My lawyers would disagree with you. Did you look at the case I referred to? There are quite a few others around too.
May be missing the point but does that case not back up my view that the flat above is liable? I had in my head from my time at law school that water leak from a flat above would be trespass. Im happy to research further/read other cases.My lawyers would disagree with you. Did you look at the case I referred to? There are quite a few others around too.
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 House of Lords
The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage.
Held:
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non- natural use of land.
Lord Cranworth:
“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.”
ecs said:
Doesn't seem right that his bad plumbing can fk my place up to the tune of ~£10k and I'm the one who's liable for the repairs though.
That's why you have insurance though, to cover you for such events. Same as if the tree in your neighbour's front garden falls over and hits your car in a storm.k my place up to the tune of ~£10k and I'm the one who's liable for the repairs though.A risk of living in an apartment block / flats, is that your property can be damaged by occurrences (negligent or not) within other apartments around you - that's why it's a great idea to take out insurance to protect you against losses from such an event.
superlightr said:
blueg33 said:
IANAL are you?
My lawyers would disagree with you. Did you look at the case I referred to? There are quite a few others around too.
May be missing the point but does that case not back up my view that the flat above is liable? I had in my head from my time at law school that water leak from a flat above would be trespass. Im happy to research further/read other cases.My lawyers would disagree with you. Did you look at the case I referred to? There are quite a few others around too.
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 House of Lords
The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage.
Held:
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non- natural use of land.
Lord Cranworth:
“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.”
The lower court judgment was affirmed, stating in essence that the Defendant’s use of the land was unreasonable, engaged in without proper caution, and resulted in harm to the Plaintiff.
The use of a washing machine and or water in a flat for domestic purposes is not unreasonable
In Transco v Stockport (a case of water leaking from a block of flats) the owner of the flats was not found liable, indeed Lord Bingham stated:
Lord Bingham said:
It is of course true that water in quantity is almost always capable of causing damage if it escapes. But the piping of a water supply from the mains to the storage tanks in the block was a routine function which would not have struck anyone as raising any special hazard. In truth, the council did not accumulate any water, it merely arranged a supply adequate to meet the residents needs
if the upstairs property was well maintained and the leak was a one off caused by no negligence by the upstairs property owner/tenant ie an unforeseeable accident
it is down to YOUR insurance to foot the bill - thats what you have it for.
on the other hand if the leak has been there for a period of time and you have mentioned it time after time and eventually the drip turns into a deluge it will be for HIS insurance to foot the bill , as you have shown negligence on his behalf.
similar thread as the roof tile falling on to the chaps car.
it is down to YOUR insurance to foot the bill - thats what you have it for.
on the other hand if the leak has been there for a period of time and you have mentioned it time after time and eventually the drip turns into a deluge it will be for HIS insurance to foot the bill , as you have shown negligence on his behalf.
similar thread as the roof tile falling on to the chaps car.
eliot said:
superlightr said:
did the owner install it himself? is he a qualified as a plumber? ]
Really ? - the fitting is identical to a garden hose. Do i now have to get a qualified plumber in before i can wash my car?If the flat above bought a new wm and it was installed for him and this failed recently then it may be argued that it was done negligently, if the owner bought it and he installed it and it leaked again it could be argued that he was negligent due to the consequences of the results if he did it wrong.
Its just something to consider if the OP was to make a money claim. Im just saying not to roll over and accept it.
superlightr said:
Its just something to consider if the OP was to make a money claim. Im just saying not to roll over and accept it.
Well, if the owner installed it 15 years ago and hasn't needed to touch it since, you're hardly in a position to complain about his workmanship.I have to say I'm curious about what evidence the OP could possibly have to back up any claim of negligence against the landlord above.
sealtt said:
ecs said:
Doesn't seem right that his bad plumbing can fk my place up to the tune of ~£10k and I'm the one who's liable for the repairs though.
That's why you have insurance though, to cover you for such events. Same as if the tree in your neighbour's front garden falls over and hits your car in a storm.k my place up to the tune of ~£10k and I'm the one who's liable for the repairs though.A risk of living in an apartment block / flats, is that your property can be damaged by occurrences (negligent or not) within other apartments around you - that's why it's a great idea to take out insurance to protect you against losses from such an event.
To answer a few questions though - the property above is in a poor state of repair, hasn't been redecorated in 15 years (despite their being a covenant in the leasehold agreement that the place should be re-painted every x years) and generally looks/smells like something from a Channel 4 documentary. The washing machine was the original one and of the same vintage - both the hot and cold water feeds became detached and it was effectively like a hosepipe had been left on upstairs.
This was all worsened due to there being no seal between my flat and the one above, a dispute which I have been involved in with the property owner for two years. So the damage to my property was extensive and potentially worsened because there was virtually no damage upstairs. They're getting a new floor though because it only takes a little bit of water in the veneer of an engineered floor for it to swell.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff