[Closed] Shower leaked into neighbors- Who's responsible?

Something like this happened to me once.

Bath with an incorrectly plumbed in overflow in this case.

The people below were not nice at all. I told them to whistle for it. They claimed for it on their insurance. The claims adjuster came round to have a look. Said it wasn't our fault and that was that. Insurance covered everything for them. They were also in the process of selling.

This is what insurance is for. Politely tell him to claim from his insurer.

The neighbour is “asking” for my email address to send me the decorators bill.

Regardless of liability, if I were paying for the repair then I'd be providing my own decorator or expecting to see several quotes from the third party.  Undertaking the work and then going "here's your bill," jog right on.

Plus, what the yellow one said. ^^

Surely this is what you have insurance for?

Used to have a leasehold flat where one of the rented properties had a leaky washing machine that caused a lot of damage to a communal hallway in the other side to the one we lived in. First time we used the buildings insurance to cover the damage, when it happened again we insisted the landlord cough up out of their own pocket or their own insurance.

That's a point - is it rented or owned?  If it's rented it's the landlord's problem, no?

This is what you have insurance for, either that or get your wallet out. Beggars belief that anyone would try to wriggle out of paying for damage they have caused, regardless of whether it was easy to spot or not.

Yes but if the legal obligation for the repair doesn't sit with me then my insurer will quite rightly tell me to sod off

my insurer will quite rightly tell me to sod off

and you'll have a proper legal opinion on who actually has liability to pass on to the other party, not a load of IT blokes on STW speculating?

That’s a point – is it rented or owned?  If it’s rented it’s the landlord’s problem, no?

My place- It's a place that I own but rent out.

Their place- It was rented, currently vacant, I am dealing with the owner.

So it's owner dealing with owner.

plus he’s in the process of selling the flat so I have no reason to keep him sweet, so I’m inclined to tell him I’m not responsible and to sort it himself.

Only of course you're required to tell the purchaser about any trouble with neighbors which you've now posted on the internet.

When selling a property it is necessary to complete a Seller’s Property Information Form. This requires you to highlight any previous or current disputes with neighbouring properties. However, it also questions whether you know of any issues that could lead to a dispute?  You could find yourself on shaky legal ground if there was an obvious problem that you kept quiet about. By preventing would be buyers from making an informed choice, you’ve effectively committed fraud

From here (because it's the first result on Google) http://www.leonkaye.co.uk/declaring-problems-with-the-neighbours-when-selling-your-property/

Edit: Sorry, read that twice and still read it as your selling. As you were.

If I'd just done the plumbing (badly) and caused the leak, then I'd probably suck it up as it was down to my negligence, and if he used insurance, they would be within their rights to look to me to cover the costs.

If it's just a deterioration in a properly-installed plumbing part over time, then it would be an insurance job unless I cared particularly about spectacular fall-outs with my neighbours (you've covered this point).

Only of course you’re required to tell the purchaser about any trouble with neighbors which you’ve now posted on the internet.

It's not a dispute, or likely to cause one. It's a simple discussion on the right way to sort out an unfortunate situation with minimum fuss. Even if it wasn't, I'm guessing 'tenacious_doug" isn't the name on the freehold.

as others have said, they claim on their insurance, if liability is proven their insurers will claim from yours

I'd offer another view - Its your leak, the guy downstairs did nothing wrong.  Your insurance should fix any damage in your flat and his or the communal buildings insurance for which terms should be in your lease.

My kitchen sink over flowed once (got distracted!) and flooded part of downstairs, my insurance paid (although my neligence in that case).  Next door (different flats) had a leak in her shower tray (around the outlet) and similar to yours wasn't obvious.  Ruined the communal wall, mamagement company tried to fob us off with buildings insurance as they said our own contents should cover it.  Quick read of the docs and the buildings paid out quite happily.  Neighbour would have paid otherwise as it was her leak!

and you’ll have a proper legal opinion on who actually has liability to pass on to the other party, not a load of IT blokes on STW speculating?

There's plenty of people here with either legal knowledge, or lots of property experience. I assume it's not a particularly complex area of law so I was pretty sure someone here would know something better than me. Plus I believe that just flagging things like leaks to the insurer, even if no claim happens, can push up premiums, so involving the insurer is last resort.

This might not be "your" insurance that it has to go through. If it's leasehold you may only have contents for your flat and your management fee covers buildings insurance, in which case the building management would sort it out. They may require you to cover the excess but that would be covered in some t's and c's of your leasehold.

If you have your own buildings cover then I would suggest you call your legal cover (if you have that included) and ask them about liability. If the guy downstairs claims on his then his insurer may chase you and ask for your insurers details to fight it out.

Personally if something in my flat caused damage I would feel obligated to make sure the other flat owner was not out of pocket and try to make sure they were impacted in other ways as little as possible. The points about getting other quotes are very valid though. You should always get your own quote unless you feel the one the other party has got is reasonable. At the end of the day it is their property so they need to be happy with the people who do work on it and as they have selected them if they turn out to be shit then it's up to them to sort.

Wouldn't the downstairs insurance just come after you? Can't see how a leak from your property causing damage to another is not your responsibility.

This might not be “your” insurance that it has to go through.

No, they'd claim on their insurance who could choose to try and get the OP's insurance to cough up (as with car crashes) but unlikely they'd both for a few £100 to redecorate as the paper work would cost more.

I have just had this but it was tenant negligence as they let water drip alongside bath. Flat downstairs got damp on ceiling.

My insurance said i had no liability.

Flat below wanted me to pay.  My plumber checked everything and all ok.

So i told flat below to claim against tenants.

Can’t see how a leak from your property causing damage to another is not your responsibility.

It's only your liability if it's directly due to your incompetence. Sometimes stuff - pipes, washing machines, toilets etc fail unexepectedly through no fault of your own.

Presumably in terms of insurance, there is a communal buildings policy for the entire block?

Given it's rented out can't you just write the cost off against any tax liability anyway?

footflaps you missed the point, if the whole building is covered by buildings insurance then it's just a simple matter for the management company to sort out with the joint insurance policy. the guy downstairs wouldnt have a separate buildings insurance policy as it's the same building.

If it was an old town house with separate management companies for each side and the OPs leak had affected someone on the other side with a completely different buildings insurance then it would be a case of the two companies fighting it out.

Poolmans is very different as there was no "failure" and as he states it is now for the other parties insurance to chase the tenants. If this was the USA then I would advise tenants to have insurance, probably less of a need in the UK due to a different culture and the insurance will probably just pay up and leave it at that.

Of course it's your responsibility. There is absolutely no debate on this you are liable to make good the damage. How do you even know they have insurance? Having insurance is not compulsory and even if they do they have no obligation to claim against it rather than pursue you for damages. You don't have a leg to stand on - 25 years served as housing professional.

There’s plenty of people here with either legal knowledge, or lots of property experience.

And a lot of conflicting advice. How much is the actual bill for? If it's less than your insurance excess just pay it.

I'm amazed at this question. Morally and I would hope legally the right thing to do is to pay for the damage that you have caused..

Has similar years ago, my insurance covered the damage to my flat but I asked the people in the flat above, where the water came from to pay my excess, iirc it was a hundred pounds, no reason I should be out of pocket because of deficiencies in their plumbing. They paid with no problem whatsoever.

Of course it’s your responsibility. There is absolutely no debate on this you are liable to make good the damage.

I think you'll find there is quite a debate on it...

How do you even know they have insurance? Having insurance is not compulsory and even if they do they have no obligation to claim against it rather than pursue you for damages.

That's really their problem, not the OP's!

"Having insurance is not compulsory "

Might be if they have a mortgage

I’m amazed at this question. Morally and I would hope legally the right thing to do is to pay for the damage that you have caused..

Seems we are in a minority ....

If something of mine damages someone else's property I'd feel obliged to put it right+... like if I borrowed a bike and got a puncture (other than wondering WTF are they doing running tubes)... I'd put in a new tube not just patch the old one...

What I’m saying is that property law has no gaps. There’s no senario that isn’t covered off in terms of a clear liability particularly for a senario as common as this. Having insurance is not compulsory. Whether in this particular case they do, or they do because they have a mortgage, or the freeholder has a building wide policy is irrelevant. The question relates to a clear and well trodden principle of property law that if a defect in your property damages someone else’s property you’re liable to sort that out. There may well be another solution via insurance but that doesn’t change the principle in law. You can’t have a principle in law based on something that may only be applicable in certain situations, like having a valid insurance policy because that would create situations where there was no recourse and property law doesn’t work like that. You’re liable end of.

I have to have two lots of insurance.

The first is because I am leasehold so have to pay money to the freeholders insurance company which covers the structure (I think)

then there is landlords insurance which covers some other stuff although they were keen to state it did not cover terrorism and this should be taken out at once despite it being a town where when a car gets broken into this is front page news.

then the tenants have contents insurance...

upstairs is the same, if there is a leak one of these will cover it and they can fight it out between them.

What CP said.

Can't belive people are suggesting the flat owners that suffered would have to claim on thier insurance due to a problem with some one else's flat..

If there is some kind of over arching insurance for the whole building it is a bit different but the owner of the flat that caused the problem would still be liable for the excess..

Shower leaked into neighbors- Who’s responsible?

You.

My boiler in rented flat gave up in January, dumping some water on floor and into downstairs.

I used my chap to fix it, then I knew costs were ok and a good job would be done.

Cheaper than an insurance claim.

It has been said already but there should be no problem with liability. Leaks are covered by building insurance. As it is a block of flats it will be a shared policy. So it should be reported to whoever is responsible for the management of the building usually the freeholder. Then the insurance should take care of it. The insurance may decide someone is at fault and ask them to pay the excess. Building insurance is compulsory

It would be for the downstairs owner to claim on their insurance, who would then look to reclaim their costs from you or your insurance if you were found to be negligent. I recently found this out when my next door neighbours oil tank split and caused damage to our property. Their investigation stopped at the boundary, as that is what their insurance covers. My insurance paid for my side, and then sent a strongly worded letter to my neighbour.

I had expected their insurance to sort out our side too, but it seems it doesn't work that way.

I imagine that by admitting liability you become open to all manner of future claims that may arise linked to the leak?

As the leak is from an upper floor flat down into a lower flat the flat owner of the upper flat should pay, as it was from their property that the leak started, general building insurance for a block of apartments is usually related to the structure and pipes not a leaking shower tray.

or you could just get the work fixed by a suitably qualified and  skilled tradesman, who can issue a receipt for work done to keep it all legal as a repair.

Neighbour a few years ago had a leak form poorly installed toilet cistern, they hadnt fitted an overflow pipe to outside, so water flowed out of cistern overflow and soaked flat below, their insurance paid out for full redecoration and replacement flooring.

Presuming shakers is actually a housing professional, here we have a classic stw case of someone actually knowing what they are on about giving advise, then others, who don't really have any knowledge on the matter, arguing the other way.

Classic stw!

Ps.. I have no idea of who is liable, but if you don't at least offer to pay the excess its a pretty bad show imo

One wonders how understanding the OP would be if the shoe was on the other foot?

Something tells me he'd be demanding that the repairs were done to the highest standard without it costing him a penny.

Shower leaked into neighbors- Who’s responsible?

If you have to ask you wont get it.

There are a lot of opinions here that go from wrong to outright judgemental. I have explained it once and so has andy l. So I will put it simply.

The leak is from one flat to another.

Leaks and the damage they cause are covered by building insurance and not contents insurance .

There will be one building insurance in place to cover the whole building.  This will be administered by the freeholder or the agent acting on behalf of the freeholder. So You and your neighbour need contact the freeholder or agent and inform them that you want to claim and the building insurance should take care of both fllats. The <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">he agent may try to fob you off but this is the law and citizens advice will more than happy to advised you if that is the case. </span>

 I recently found this out when my next door neighbours oil tank split and caused damage to our property. Their investigation stopped at the boundary, as that is what their insurance covers. My insurance paid for my side, and then sent a strongly worded letter to my neighbour.

There is a legal rule called Rylands v Fletcher which says that if someone brings something "non-natural" onto their land and it escapes then they are strictly liable for the damage it causes. In the actual case that substance was water in a reservoir.

Strict liability means that they have to pay regardless of any negligence and the court merely decides the extent of the compensation.

The neighbour's policy should have cleaned their own land up and continued on to your's which would be the best and most reasonable (cheapest) thing to do. However, lots of insurers will just wait to be subrogated against which is presumably what your insurance company has done. The problem with oil is that if it leaked wider then the Environment Agency can get involved with mandatory cleanup costs and fines...

PS for the op's situation:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-101-3874?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

You are - simple as.  If it is non negligent your insurance should cover it.  If its negligent they may not.

You are – simple as.  If it is non negligent your insurance should cover it.  If its negligent they may not.

So much wrong in one short paragraph.

Really?  What is wrong.  You damage someone elses property its your responsibility.  thats the law.

I used my chap to fix it,

Clever dick.

Rich_s:

That case you linked to is distinguishable from the OP’s case in that Transco (the Claimant) argued that the Defendant council (owner of the water pipe) was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability).

"Really?  What is wrong.  You damage someone elses property its your responsibility.  thats the law."

Not in this case as the law is different for leasehold properties. Technically the leaseholder does not own their flat but have a long term lease on it. The freeholder owns the building and it is the responsibility of the freeholder to have a suitable buildings insurance in place.

So it is the freeholders place to claim on behalf of both leaseholders and unless it has been caused by deliberate negligence neither is liable.

I had expected the owner of the property that leaked to be strictly liable, irrespective of negligence. So I've done some Googling (but am not a lawyer). It seems not to be as clear cut. If you're doing construction work (not applicable here) insurance will typically cover non-negligent liability so it's clearly a thing. Rylands v Fletcher introduced strict liability, Transco v Stockport excluded liability where the cause was not dangerous or unnatural and Leakey v National Trust reintroduced liability if the defendant was aware of the problem and could have reasonably fixed it but didn't. On that basis tenacious_doug's leak wasn't dangerous, was only natural water and he wasn't aware of it, so legally not liable. Morally, if it was my flat leaking, I'd feel responsible. There may be things in housing law I don't know about, and I'd expect the lease for flats to address the issue.

I was using Rylands to refer to matthewlhome and the oil leak. Sorry if it muddied the oily waters.

Anyway, the op's answer lies with the communal building cover, not the sanctimonious tribe on here saying "Well, I'd pay if I'd not realised my shower tray was leaking due to some wear and tear underneath it from poor fitment of low quality parts 47 years ago. I'd feel morally obliged to!"

Really? If it was 100k worth of damage? More?

Ah - not used to leasehold as everything here is freehold.  If its freehold it is certainly your responsibility.