Hi all,
My flat is one of the 4 flats in a building which is insured by the building insurance to cover any damage caused by escape of Water from boilers etc.
Last year the downstairs flat assumed there was a leak into their flat in the similar spot to previous leak and shared a photo of their ceiling with very minor flaky paint even though there was no evidence of active leak. I immediately got in touch with the building management and they sent someone in to investigate, upon the investigation, the contractor concluded there was a condensed leak from the heat exchanger and advised the boiler could continue to be in use as the leak might or might not happen and only happened every now and then if it did. The contractor then recommended to replace the boiler due to the location of the boiler sitting on the floor not easy to maintain and not cost efficient. I immediately reached out to contractors to get quotes for new boiler replacement and the boiler was installed.
After 8 months, the downstairs flat demanded their flat ceiling to be entirely replaced and sent across an expensive quote from their own builder asking to put in both protection and replacing their ceiling even though the only photo they have shared showed very minor flaky paint in very small spot. The building management did not really act diligently and teamed up with the downstairs flat to stop this claim against the building insurance and demanded me to meet their unjustified damage claim by simply telling me the claims can not be covered by building insurance because of loss mitigation clause. I explained to them with all the details of the events that there is no negligence in dealing with this matter throughout. The building management was brought in by the downstairs flat and they have acted inappropriately in this case by harassing me to meet their unjustified damage claim instead of working with the building insurance company to go through proper processes required by such damage claims.
I have asked the building management to cooperate with the insurance company to properly assess and justify the damage claims, also in our building lease, it clearly states such damage should be covered by building insurance and it does not say who should pay the excess, should the excess be covered by the service charge? I guess if there is any dispute on the excess payment then the building needs to hire a solicitor to clarify it.
Your view will be much appreciated.
Thanks.
If the previous leak also had the same cause, the owner of the flat below you may be able to establish negligence on your part for not acting sooner. However without this, my understanding is that you would have no legal liability for any of the costs.
You should check this position with an insurance expert if you intend to challenge their demand for payment.
1 Like
Hi David122,
Thanks for your reply.
Previous leak was already fixed immediately once it was reported.
My understanding based on the lease is, the building management is obliged to cooperate with the building insurance company to assess and justify the damage claims from the downstairs owner, they seemed to have a belief they could claim whatever they want.
@Helen2023
Are flat below claiming repairs needed for damage caused since boiler was replaced (if so what do they think is cause), or further damage from original leak in a slightly different place or simply to repair original damage from original leak. You haven’t made clear at all
It may well be worth checking from above or making a small hole and checking from below whether there is an ongoing issue or not. With the best will in the world your contractor may have fixed one leak by replacing boiler and if that puts more pressure on pipes elsewhere another pipe or joint could now be leaking slowly
I would suggest double checking what your building insurance actually covers with insurers - it is very unusual for such insurance to cover damage caused in one flat by boilers or pipes within another. Any reference to leaks and damage from escape of water would usually only relate to pipework or boilers that are in communal areas (or if there is a common boiling system or water tanks in the roofspace).
Normally flat below (or their contents insurance which would include the ceilings) would claim from flat above; whether flat above pays direct or gets sorted by your own insurers is entirely up to you. You claim to have been hassled. From their perspective they are simply trying to get rectified damage caused from within your flat
Could well be flat below tried a quick paint over repair without using coverstain /oil based paint so it has flaked again and they have decided to try to get done properly via insurance
Either way a small bit of paint damage doesn’t justify a complete ceiling replacement and you should get mgt Co to get 3 independent assessments and quotes of what is needed to repair the damage, which may be a small patch repair then skimming and painting the whole ceiling (you probably can’t only patch & paint the damaged section as it will stand out). The fact you have since replaced the boiler to prevent further damage is great but doesn’t stop you (or building insurance if they do cover) from being responsible for repairs. If localized shouldn’t need replacement of whole ceiling but a plasterer/builder can advise
In your case I would ask mgt Co for evidence to back their assertion that the clause means building insurance won’t cover - if this is indeed what insurers have said you can reasonably ask mgt Co to challenge based on your fuller set of facts - it does sound like you acted promptly to prevent further damage. That doesn’t explain why original damage to ceiling wouldn’t be covered.
Your contract with the service Co should say what happens re excesses when there is an insurance claim I would expect these to be shared (via the service charge and any reserve fund or other ad hoc oayments) in same way as any other repairs.
Good luck
1 Like
Thanks very much David240 for the thorough information and advice.
They are claiming damage from original leak before boiler was replaced plus protection to put in their ceiling to prevent further leak.
The original damage photo from them was a tiny flaky paint in a small spot on their ceiling, hence it is not justified for them to ask for entire ceiling replacement as you rightly pointed out.
The building lease has stated clearly damage from escape of water from boilers in all flats are covered by building insurance, but it does not state who should pay for the excess which I suppose will need all freeholders in the building to get a solicitor to clarify and from the knowledge I have gathered so far, if the lease does not say who should pay the excess then it shall be covered by service charge. Also the current building management has managed to increase the excess for the current building insurance by two times from previous building insurance by the previous building management without seeking agreement from any of the freeholders -at least I was not informed. I also pointed this out to the building management.
Thanks again for your kind advice.
@Helen2023 there may be past precedent from other buildings insurance claims on how any excess is shared between the 4 flats, but unless specified otherwise it should be shared in same way as any other ad hoc costs. Should be no need for a lawyer to determine.
As for the excess increasing you and other flats (or freeholder if different) essentially pay building mgt to procure the insurance. You can ask for insurance policy and if each of the 4 flats pay directly for the insurance then if they organized different cover you should have been told- check what they shared. If you are a leaseholder and freeholder pays for BI (then charges the flats) you would have had to ask to see the policy schedule. Just like if they organize external paintwork, repairs to communal areas or to roof you have to ask for it.
Good luck
1 Like
Thanks very much David240 for your kind advice.
All 4 flat owners in the building are freeholders of the freehold company formed for the building and the building management is hired by the freeholders to manage the building. My share was transferred from the previous owner.
Thanks again for your extremely insightful information on this matter, much appreciated.
1 Like
@Helen2023 if you can I would try speaking to your neighbour downstairs face to face, maybe with a friend or one of the other neighbours present, explain why you think mgt Co has been lax and the works should be payable by the building insurance so you want to them to try that properly. And that whether that’s true or not, they cant just expect one quote based on their builder to be acceptable. A proper set of photos showing the whole ceiling and the damaged area, and 3 independent quotes, is normal. At same time whilst they may not need whole ceiling replaced I think you should acknowledge after a patch repair done, the whole may need skimming and decorating so it may be more than just repainting the small bit where it’s flaking. And don’t even mention lawyers or the excess at this point. Show you are willing to be reasonable even tho mgt Co hasn’t been.
I own a share of freehold flat and one of my neighbour is selling, as part of the sale we have responded to a question about future costs as follows
-
When will these works be completed?
No date has been set. The works were not considered urgent and will now be discussed and agreed between the 3 Freeholders (including the new owner). All works are carried out following prioritisation and agreement between the Freeholders. Once agreement is in place to proceed, a minimum of 3 quotes will generally be sought before a decision is made and the works are scheduled.
Appreciate it’s slightly different when there’s a building insurance claim and the building insurance may be willing to accept just one quote, but when it’s anything else there should be an expectation of obtaining multiple quotes unless emergency work or low value, and you should be trying to get that understood and agreed between all 4 flat owners and then the mgt co. not just for your current issue but for future costs.
Just as you should get it clarified and agreed between the 4 flats that just like the building insurance itself is shared between the 4 flats, the excess on any claims should also be shared, just like any other costs. Sometimes that means when there is a leak in someone else’s flat you have to pay something for damage downstairs but that’s how it works- all 4 of you are neighbour and you share building insurance related costs.
Good luck
1 Like
Thanks very much David240 for your very thoughtful advice.
I agree the building lease is very sensible and that was probably the reason why it was writen in the first place to make sure all flats in the building are insured to cover such cost to protect flat owners from insensible claims like this.
I am perfectly happy to share the cost if the same happens in other flats, the problem with the lower flat is these people are not reasonable at all and very ignorant- in fact the previous owner sold the flat because they did not want to deal with them anymore.
Thanks very much again for your kind advice.
1 Like
Ps cost at (google)
“Cost of plastering a ceiling
Checkatrade. “ you then need to add cost of painting
1 Like
With regard to insurance excess…….you need to get agreement on this. In a similar situation, with a block insurance in place, and after many hours of debate, it was agreed that the person making the claim should pay the excess. (so, in your case, the downstairs flat). This was in order to discourage people claiming for every little thing, knowing that everyone else would be sharing the excess cost.
2 Likes
Thank you very much Christine19, this is very helpful. This really gives me confidence to confront them if they come back to harass me again.
1 Like