Responsibility to pay for damage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Responsibility to pay for damage

    So a tenant vacated a rented flat in a block where I am a leaseholder. The flat had been let on a private basis with no agent involved. I know no other details. It would now appear that the tenant left a tap running after removal of the washing machine. 2 weeks later, the intercom system in the block stopped working and the electrician was called to investigate. He immediately saw that there was water running down the wall that had blown a component in the intercom system and on further investigation found that the flat immediately under the vacated flat, had water building up in their ceiling (had gone unnoticed !!). So the upshot is that the Fire brigade was called out, as the leaseholder could not be contacted, and so the FB broke the door to the flat, so that the water in the flat could be turned off. !!! (god knows why they didnt go to the mains water manifold serving all of the flats to that floor and turn it off there, but they didnt).
    The question I posed the MA was.....So who is going to pay for this? Not just the labour involved in fixing the intercom system, but the damage done to the empty flat, as well as the damage done to the flat underneath.
    Their answer surprised me....It is that the leaseholder of the vacant flat where the water was left running, would be asked to pay the £250 excess on any claim made against the Blocks General Insurance, and that that Insurer would pay for the damages (apart from the first £250), therefore it is possible that the buildings insurance policy could be increased in future years, ,meaning that all other leaseholders would end up paying for this in increased service charge premiums (and considering that the leaseholder of the flat is in the throws of selling the lease). How come this is not the full responsibility for the leaseholder or tenant, as this damage was caused by a tenant inside a flat, with damage caused to the inside of another flat, and is it likely that the leaseholder would have had a holding deposit from their tenant, which they could keep??

    #2
    Simply because it's easier to have the insurance sort it all out now than to chase after a departed tenant and departing leaseholder and sue them, which could take months/years and is not guaranteed to recover the costs needed anyway.

    That's why you pay block insurance.

    Comment

    Latest Activity

    Collapse

    • Ground Rent review
      by Century
      United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council

      Does this case mean that for a residential lease failure to give notice of GR increase during the review period doesn't matter? I.e review can be at any time, even after specified review date?
      11-08-2022, 14:47 PM
    • Reply to Ground Rent review
      by flyingfreehold
      I bought a freehold estate out of receivership and the developer who had since become insolvent had reserved ground rents that increased in proportion to the increase in value of the flats since the leases were granted 25 yearly earlier. By the time the first review came along most of the lessees had...
      12-08-2022, 15:14 PM
    • Reply to Ground Rent review
      by Century
      Interesting!
      But it doesn’t stop them doing it though.

      On one site I’m contesting a GR increase that puts it above £250 pa (outside inner London) with the obvious ramifications. On another the increase is 33% - from £37.50 to £50 per 6 months, so have to balance the cost benefit...
      12-08-2022, 14:31 PM
    • Reply to Ground Rent review
      by Lawcruncher
      A section 166 notice relating to the reviewed rent cannot be served until the rent has been quantified.
      12-08-2022, 14:03 PM
    • Reply to Ground Rent review
      by Century
      Not the same developer - 3 different ones. Don’t know about conveyancer.

      Counter notice will be served of course. S166 notice also defective for Wales - I won’t go into details in case there are spies from freeholder and/or their agent.🥸...
      12-08-2022, 12:56 PM
    • Reply to Ground Rent review
      by Lawcruncher
      I think the way the law sees it is that the tenant has a lease with the provision in it and knows that on certain dates the rent will increase and on what basis.



      Must be the same developer and/or conveyancer.

      Having a rent review for a ground rent is not generally...
      12-08-2022, 12:18 PM
    • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
      by Limply
      According to the lease, the roof and the roof structure are included in the Demised Premises. There is no mention of the space above the roof.

      And wow I wasn't expecting that many answers! In any case, the other leaseholder (we are only 2 in the house) is open to buying the freehold so...
      12-08-2022, 12:17 PM
    • Freeholder Premium to consent
      by Limply
      Hi all,

      I am looking at extending my leasehold flat by adding a newbuild next to the loft (will be erected on top of the first floor). I have just asked my freeholder for the process to follow. In the past they have asked me to pay a "Landlord’s premium for the consent to be established
      ...
      11-08-2022, 16:20 PM
    • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
      by AndrewDod
      Not sure it does suggest that (either the no-ownership or the inferiority). A contract can be an asset in itself.

      Some contracts are worth a lot (A New York Yellow Taxi Token was worth a $million until Uber came along).

      Yes "You have no ownership in the building"...
      12-08-2022, 12:12 PM
    • Reply to Ground Rent review
      by Century
      Thanks Lawcruncher! That is hardly an equitable situation for the leaseholders, but if that’s case law then so be it.
      BTW I have residential properties in three separate developments and all have identical clauses to 3.1 and 3.2 as posted above...
      12-08-2022, 11:58 AM
    Working...
    X