Anyone a lawyer?

[Calin Leafshade]

Ok so about 12 months ago I had a leak in my bathroom. It was a small leak due to a faulty seal in one of the pipes. I live in an upstairs flat for which I own the longterm leasehold but not the freehold and some of the water managed to make its way down the plaster into the flat below.

When the guy downstairs told me about the leak, I immediately turned off the water and then isolated the problem and stopped the leak more or less immediately so I wasn't negligent in repairing the leak.

A few days ago I received a letter from the lettings agency who rent the flat downstairs. They say that they are going to bill me for the damage to the plaster.

Now, that seems like an odd thing to do. There was no negligence and it was clearly an accident. Surely it's just a matter for the insurance and I couldn't be personally liable for the damage. If my bath fell through the ceiling they wouldn't personally bill me for thousands of pounds to fix the ceiling, they would just claim on the building's insurance.

Any thoughts?

[Khris]

I'm not a lawyer but the same thing happened to my roommates and me a while ago.
After installing the new washing machine, one of the hoses leaked a bit and over the course of the weekend, lots of water ended up in the bank below us; on their desks and computers, on a custom made, expensive wooden dividing wall, etc.

One roommate was the main leaseholder and we were really lucky that he had a personal legal liability(?) that took care of everything. They paid the damage in full. The total was about â,¬ 25'000.

There was also a pretty high bill for the machines that were installed in our apartment to get the walls dry again.
The owners of the building sent the bill to us at first, and we had to repeatedly tell them that if they own a building, they are insured against accidental water damage and this insurance is even paid for by all the tenants.

Two things I learned from that:
1. Get insurance for when you damage other people's property
2. Even people who in theory should know who's supposed to pay for what can't be relied on to get things right.

[RickJ]

Ok so about 12 months ago I had a leak in my bathroom. It was a small leak due to a faulty seal in one of the pipes.

You knew about the leak for 12 months and did nothing.  If it was your responsibility to fix it or your responsibility to tell someone else to fix it then not doing so could be considered an act of negligence.   

Surely it's just a matter for the insurance and I couldn't be personally liable for the damage.

Your leak caused the damage and if your are responsible for fixing the leak then you are also responsible for repairing the damage.  If your insurance covers it then by all means turn in a claim.   The other guy's insurance is likely not obligated to pay for damages caused by third parties.  Even if they were, they would still have a cause of action against the thrid party who caused the damage.

When the guy downstairs told me about the leak, I immediately turned off the water and then isolated the problem and stopped the leak more or less immediately so I wasn't negligent in repairing the leak.

This is about the only thing going in your favor.  The damage to the downstairs apartment didn't occur instantly; it occurred gradually over a period of time.  You had no way of knowing that damage was occurring in that apartment but it's occupant did know.  He could have informed you much earlier in the process but choose not to.  If he had informed you when the damage first started to occur there would have been much less damage.   

A case could be made that you should only be liable for a portion of the damages.

All of the above is of course highly dependent on the specific laws in your jurisdiction, the terms of the rental/lease contract, and even the political fashion of the day.  Unfortunately you will have to hire an attorney to find out wassup,    Bear in mind that plasterers are usually much less expensive than lawyers.  Good luck!

[Calin Leafshade]

Ok so about 12 months ago I had a leak in my bathroom. It was a small leak due to a faulty seal in one of the pipes.

You knew about the leak for 12 months and did nothing.  If it was your responsibility to fix it or your responsibility to tell someone else to fix it then not doing so could be considered an act of negligence.   

No no no. I was first made aware of the leak 12 months ago and I fixed it immediately. I fixed the leak (or at least stopped the water) within minutes of learning of the leak. The point is that the letting agency are only just chasing me for the cost of the damage 12 months after the fact.

What kind of person lets a pipe leak for 12 months? 

Surely it's just a matter for the insurance and I couldn't be personally liable for the damage.

Your leak caused the damage and if your are responsible for fixing the leak then you are also responsible for repairing the damage.  If your insurance covers it then by all means turn in a claim.   The other guy's insurance is likely not obligated to pay for damages caused by third parties.  Even if they were, they would still have a cause of action against the thrid party who caused the damage.

I don't think this is the case. For a start the flat below and I *share* the same insurance because it is part of the buildings insurance which is part of the freeholders insurance which covers the development.

[RickJ]

No no no. I was first made aware of the leak 12 months ago and I fixed it immediately. I fixed the leak (or at least stopped the water) within minutes of learning of the leak.

Hehe, no wonder you were so adamant about not being negligent  .   So yeah i would think you have a fairly strong case.  You didn't do anything to cause the leak and when you became aware of it you immediate took action to remedy the situation.  You didn't install the pipes or have any say in who did the install, how they did it, how much they got paid to do it or what materials they used.  

I don't think this is the case. For a start the flat below and I *share* the same insurance because it is part of the buildings insurance which is part of the freeholders insurance which covers the development.

Right. So if the insurance covers such events and you and the other residents are jointly paying the premiums then they ought to pay.  You should contact them to let them know what's going on and to ask how to file a claim in this situation.  

Just out of curiosity, this sounds like this is a condo sort of a deal.  Is there an owners association, yearly maintenance fees, etc.  When you say "letting agency" are they the ones who developed and/or marketed the building to people like yourself? 

Carefully read everything (insurance, contracts, etc) and see if situations like this are explicitly and clearly addressed.  How much is the damage anyway? $200-300?  Is the guy downstairs trying to cash-in for more or just wanting to have the plaster fixed? 

Most lawyers (at least in the US) offer a free initial consultation.  If so take advantage of that but be prepared before you go in.  Ask him to explain who is responsible for what in this situation.  Ask if you are responsible for the buildings mechanical systems and if the plumbing is included.  You may even be due compensation for making the plumbing repairs, who knows?  Ask about the insurance and what role they should be playing. Who should file the claim and on whose behalf.  How to determine the appropriate value of the damage.  What documentation do you need to collect? (receipts/quotations for the repair work, insurance documents, contracts, photos of the damage, etc).   Conceivably you can glean enough advice to prevail in small claims court on your own.  It may come to that if you have all the facts and know what you are doing.

[Intense Degree]

Firstly, I should say that I am not giving you formal legal advice and in any event you must and should not rely on any views or information contained in this post in any subsequent proceedings of any nature or for any other purpose.

I am quite sure you are more than sensible enough not to rely on some guy from the internet anyway(!) and will be aware that you should seek formal legal advice whenever faced with any kind of claim.

However, some general points that might be worth considering.

Now, that seems like an odd thing to do. There was no negligence and it was clearly an accident. Surely it's just a matter for the insurance and I couldn't be personally liable for the damage. If my bath fell through the ceiling they wouldn't personally bill me for thousands of pounds to fix the ceiling, they would just claim on the building's insurance.

Any thoughts?

1. Negligence or breach of duty can arise by act or omission and anyone living in a block of flats will more than likely have a duty to keep in repair and maintain installations such as the plumbing for the bathroom and, arising from this, a potential liability to compensate a third party injured by a negligent act or omission (for instance failing to keep in good repair and maintain plumbing). A contract between the owner/landlord and the management company (or similar) would likely contain more detail on any contractual duty.

2. Generally, the owner of the freehold of the building (or their agents) will have taken out buildings insurance (albeit paid for by the tenants) for the building which would more than likely cover any structural damage etc. However it does not always cover items such as damaged fittings such as ruined carpets and a landlord or owner might be liable for these. The buildings insurance policy would set out the purported areas and level of cover and provide more information.

3. If person A's flat were damaged by something arising from Person B's flat, he might well ask Person B to pay for the repair etc. (this is, of course, not the same thing as bringing formal court proceedings - i.e. suing) even on a speculative basis rather than claim on a policy to which he himself contributes and whose premiums might rise!

Person A can write to Person B asking for anything they want (within reason!) but cannot force Person B to pay anything without a court order to which, in the usual run of things, they would need to prove they were entitled.