Freehold/Leasehold insurance questions
Discussion
Looking for some insight. The situation is a block of shops with houses over. There is a freeholder and leaseholders. One day the drain blocks and the washing machine overflows in a flat and causes water damage to the shop below.
It appears that the freeholder is the one that has insurance that would cover the damage to the shop and the flat. Is that usual? No idea that it is unusual, just checking.
Who is it that needs to claim for the damage to the shop? I think it's the shop leaseholder rather than the flat leaseholder (even though the damaging flood came from the flat).
It seems that the freeholder is hard to get hold of, in fact noone seems to know how, thus there is a bit of a quandary on how to proceed.
The shop owner has asked the flat owner to pay for the damage "they caused". But on the basis that they were seemingly not negligent, that doesn't seem right. What is correct here regarding liability?
Is there any way to find the contact details of the freeholder? The flat is recently purchased and the solicitor acting for the purchaser only seems to be able to work through the freeholder's solicitor and that is proving fruitless.
Sorry for the long dull tale, actual questions highlighted, thanks in advance.
Cheers
Bert
It appears that the freeholder is the one that has insurance that would cover the damage to the shop and the flat. Is that usual? No idea that it is unusual, just checking.
Who is it that needs to claim for the damage to the shop? I think it's the shop leaseholder rather than the flat leaseholder (even though the damaging flood came from the flat).
It seems that the freeholder is hard to get hold of, in fact noone seems to know how, thus there is a bit of a quandary on how to proceed.
The shop owner has asked the flat owner to pay for the damage "they caused". But on the basis that they were seemingly not negligent, that doesn't seem right. What is correct here regarding liability?
Is there any way to find the contact details of the freeholder? The flat is recently purchased and the solicitor acting for the purchaser only seems to be able to work through the freeholder's solicitor and that is proving fruitless.
Sorry for the long dull tale, actual questions highlighted, thanks in advance.
Cheers
Bert
What caused the drain to block? Unless someone is negligent, which they probably aren't then
Flat owner claims on their contents insurance for damage to their contents
Shop owner claims on their contents insurance for damage to their contents
Freeholder claims on their building insurance for damage to their building
Flat owner claims on their contents insurance for damage to their contents
Shop owner claims on their contents insurance for damage to their contents
Freeholder claims on their building insurance for damage to their building
Thanks both. To answer the questions...
The flat owner had recently purchased the flat which has been unoccupied for 12 months and then got a plumber to plumb in a new washing machine in a new position but into an existing drain. After the flood, the drain was found to have some silt in by the plumber coming back. It was flushed, problem solved.
The main damage is to the internal ceiling of the shop below, which I assume is covered by the buildings insurance, not contents.
The purchaser's solicitor said that the landlord had to have the insurance cover for the building.
Would you claim from contents or buildings insurance to have a ceiling replaced and water damage made good?
It sounds like the key might be the lease terms which I'll try to get hold of.
The core problem maybe is that the landlord seems impossible to get hold of and is probably completely uninterested in making an insurance claim.
Cheers
The flat owner had recently purchased the flat which has been unoccupied for 12 months and then got a plumber to plumb in a new washing machine in a new position but into an existing drain. After the flood, the drain was found to have some silt in by the plumber coming back. It was flushed, problem solved.
The main damage is to the internal ceiling of the shop below, which I assume is covered by the buildings insurance, not contents.
The purchaser's solicitor said that the landlord had to have the insurance cover for the building.
Would you claim from contents or buildings insurance to have a ceiling replaced and water damage made good?
It sounds like the key might be the lease terms which I'll try to get hold of.
The core problem maybe is that the landlord seems impossible to get hold of and is probably completely uninterested in making an insurance claim.
Cheers
With flats, which is what this is (bottom floor being a shop makes no odds), when you get damage from above you claim on the buildings insurance for damage to the building, which the freeholder will have in place. The freeholder is the one that owns the actual bricks and mortar.
That is at least what happens in leasehold flats. I'm a director of a management co for the flat I live in and our overall buildings insurance pays for water damage, as it has several time recently. That insurance has paid for ceiling repairs, wall repairs, re plastering, etc.
What it doesn't pay for is contents. That's down to the flat owners contents insurance. I had one water damaged flat extensively repaired under our overall insurance and then their own contents insurance paid for new carpets.
That is at least what happens in leasehold flats. I'm a director of a management co for the flat I live in and our overall buildings insurance pays for water damage, as it has several time recently. That insurance has paid for ceiling repairs, wall repairs, re plastering, etc.
What it doesn't pay for is contents. That's down to the flat owners contents insurance. I had one water damaged flat extensively repaired under our overall insurance and then their own contents insurance paid for new carpets.
Thanks, that makes sense and is what I had thought was the case. The only challenge here is that the landlord is not contactable in any sensible timeframe it seems, so for the shop to get the ceiling fixed is hard work and they are unhappy about things. Fortunately, their trade is not affected so it's less time critical. Mind you, they can go ahead and fix it, they'll just be out of pocket until it's resolved.
Cheers!
Cheers!
BertBert said:
Thanks, that makes sense and is what I had thought was the case. The only challenge here is that the landlord is not contactable in any sensible timeframe it seems, so for the shop to get the ceiling fixed is hard work and they are unhappy about things. Fortunately, their trade is not affected so it's less time critical. Mind you, they can go ahead and fix it, they'll just be out of pocket until it's resolved.
Cheers!
No problem. I was going to add, if the landlord/leasholder is uncontactable or uninsured, then you need to claim off the person upstairs. How they deal with that is their issue.Cheers!
Not sure what you do going forwards re buildings insurance with an absent landlord.
Griffith4ever said:
No problem. I was going to add, if the landlord/leasholder is uncontactable or uninsured, then you need to claim off the person upstairs. How they deal with that is their issue.
Not sure what you do going forwards re buildings insurance with an absent landlord.
I don't think you can claim from the person upstairs as they haven't been negligent. But I don't #know# that only think it. Anyone?Not sure what you do going forwards re buildings insurance with an absent landlord.
Griffith4ever said:
No problem. I was going to add, if the landlord/leasholder is uncontactable or uninsured, then you need to claim off the person upstairs. How they deal with that is their issue.
Not sure what you do going forwards re buildings insurance with an absent landlord.
I agree with what you have previously wrote about flats, even in a domestic flat in this situation the upstairs lease holder would have no liability, escape of water is not negligent, its an event that can happen to anyone. Not sure what you do going forwards re buildings insurance with an absent landlord.
It would become negligent if for instance the shower leaked every time it was used and nothing was done to fix it. It is usually quite a high bar to pass to successfully claim for this, especially if they have tried to solve the problem, so if a plumber has come round and thought it was leaking from the waste and fixed this but the leak continues as it was caused by some other issue then they have not been negligent.
A one off event would not usually be considered negligent.
In general most (almost all) commercial rentals are fully repairing, so placing the repair burden on the leaseholder. An internal ceiling damaged by a minor leak would normally require re-decoration, maybe a bit of plaster, not much else. This would not usually be the on FH to repair or insure against. If the leak has caused structural damage then that is a different issue and would be on the FH.
Unless the damage is significant I cant imagine a claim against upstairs or the FH would be entertained, certainly not by their insurers.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, I am helping the flat owner. The shop has said that there is £3k of ceiling and water damage which they have asked the flat owner for, but I've not seen it yet.
If there is no insurance able to cover it and essentially it's down to the shop to resolve, although they expect the flat owner to pay, it could end up in a fractious situation which is not ideal having just moved in.
If there is no insurance able to cover it and essentially it's down to the shop to resolve, although they expect the flat owner to pay, it could end up in a fractious situation which is not ideal having just moved in.
gottans said:
Does the upstairs flat owner have buildings cover as well as contents cover or is it only contents cover based on the freeholder having the buildings insurance.
This could get messy.
Only contents cover. The solicitor doing the conveyancing advised that buildings cover was not needed (or maybe not possible) as the landlord was responsible and had it. Even if the flat owner had buildings cover, I'm not sure it would cover the third party liability as I don't think there is one.This could get messy.
So the flat owner and the shop owner are relying on the landlord's building cover. I have no idea whether it's possible for them to get their own cover and how that would work. But it's worth looking into for the future.
Must be a common situation though.
BertBert said:
gottans said:
Does the upstairs flat owner have buildings cover as well as contents cover or is it only contents cover based on the freeholder having the buildings insurance.
This could get messy.
Only contents cover. The solicitor doing the conveyancing advised that buildings cover was not needed (or maybe not possible) as the landlord was responsible and had it. Even if the flat owner had buildings cover, I'm not sure it would cover the third party liability as I don't think there is one.This could get messy.
So the flat owner and the shop owner are relying on the landlord's building cover. I have no idea whether it's possible for them to get their own cover and how that would work. But it's worth looking into for the future.
Must be a common situation though.
This was claimed on after an immersion heater fault melted the hot water header tank which then dumped its contents of boiling hot water through the ceiling and subsequently into the property below.
I don't know the details of the claim but everything got repaired including the property below.
I'm a little surprised the buyers solicitor didn't verify there was a building cover policy in place with the freeholder rather than just saying not your problem to the buyer.
We flooded downstairs (several times but we won’t go into that).
The major time our insurance company paid for all the damage to downstairs even though it was completely unforeseen. But then again we were paying a fortune for a good insurance company, as is advisable in a listed tenement.
Griffith4ever said:
With flats, which is what this is (bottom floor being a shop makes no odds), when you get damage from above you claim on the buildings insurance for damage to the building, which the freeholder will have in place. The freeholder is the one that owns the actual bricks and mortar.
That is at least what happens in leasehold flats. I'm a director of a management co for the flat I live in and our overall buildings insurance pays for water damage, as it has several time recently. That insurance has paid for ceiling repairs, wall repairs, re plastering, etc.
What it doesn't pay for is contents. That's down to the flat owners contents insurance. I had one water damaged flat extensively repaired under our overall insurance and then their own contents insurance paid for new carpets.
Unless (not in this case) the flats are Tyneside Lease whereby the ground floor flat owner is a leaseholder but holds the freehold to the upstairs flat and vice veraThat is at least what happens in leasehold flats. I'm a director of a management co for the flat I live in and our overall buildings insurance pays for water damage, as it has several time recently. That insurance has paid for ceiling repairs, wall repairs, re plastering, etc.
What it doesn't pay for is contents. That's down to the flat owners contents insurance. I had one water damaged flat extensively repaired under our overall insurance and then their own contents insurance paid for new carpets.
BertBert said:
Thanks both. To answer the questions...
The flat owner had recently purchased the flat which has been unoccupied for 12 months and then got a plumber to plumb in a new washing machine in a new position but into an existing drain. After the flood, the drain was found to have some silt in by the plumber coming back. It was flushed, problem solved.
Cheers
Very unlikely to prove negligence . Certainly not on the freeholder assuming the plumber isn't some jack of all trades from down the pub. Possibly on the plumber but one off and cleared by flushing i doubt it.The flat owner had recently purchased the flat which has been unoccupied for 12 months and then got a plumber to plumb in a new washing machine in a new position but into an existing drain. After the flood, the drain was found to have some silt in by the plumber coming back. It was flushed, problem solved.
Cheers
Sh*t happens sometimes and if you don't like the risk attached to that you take out insurance. Each occupier would claim on their own contents. The person accountable for each building would claim on their building insurance for damage to walls etc. Probably the freeholder but maybe the lease holder if the damage isn't structural.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff