to not pay my neighbour's £1,000 insurance excess?

[washerwoman2]

Apologies for being so long! I live in a flat and the block has a caretaker. In March he left me a note saying the flat downstairs had reported a water leak and could I check it was my washing machine. I immediately went to their flat to ask about it. They were away for the weekend but I left a note with my mobile number on it. Over the course of a few tests - we never met - the tenant (the owner's son in law) told me it had been leaking for a few weeks but 'they had been away a lot'. Once the slow drip leak was established as coming from my washing machine it was fixed within 24 hours. I had not had a new machine installed so don't know why it started leaking.

2 months later the management co send me an email telling me the owner of the flat is making an insurance claim and I will be liable for the excess. Size of claim not mentioned. The owner of the flat was cc'd but did not respond when I said the tenant was at fault for not reporting it to me promptly and I would not pay it.

4 months later the owner sends an email including his bank details and asking for £1k. His insurance claim was for a whole new kitchen so approx 9k. I respond by saying I though the matter was closed as he had not contacted me for 4 months, am surprised at size of claim, can I see the damage and copies of docs including proof the excess is 1k. 4 weeks go by and I hear nothing. Then we meet at a residents meeting - even though he doesn't live here he owns 3 flats. His 2 children live in one each and he rents the third out.

He very nicely asks for £1k. I mention my email and he claims he never received it. I give him a hard copy and 4 days later he sends me the docs. As it's now 7 months since the leak, the damage has been repaired and I can't see it. My (suspicious) opinion is that some of the docs look like they have been edited and may not be the official docs. The amount paid out by the insurance co has been blacked out but is slightly legible and is more than he told me they had paid. The letter does say the excess is £1k. The emails he has sent are now full of comments about the flat being uninhabitable, the tenants had to live with mould, he has had considerable expense (which is a lie - he has paid £1k but is telling me it is more and the damaged kitchen was 18 years old so nearing end of useful life) and setting a seven day deadline to pay and if I don't pay we will enter a legal phase and it will end up costing me more.

AIBU to not pay on the grounds that I was not negligent (if anyone was negligent it's his son in law who knew there was a leak and did nothing), and he has not been open, timely and honest re communication etc. As I understand it, the law says he would have to prove I was negligent to take me to court and I don't think he could prove that.

No, Jessie. That's the point. It is of absolutely no importance if the claim could have been smaller:

a) he would still claim costs off OP anyway - up to a thousand using the figure being discussed.

b) it is not for the OP to decide that her negligence. battery is right in the eyes of the law, OPs machine was inadequately serviced or it would not have leaked - harsh but accurate, in law, when your property causes damage to someone elses.

c) the claim has been settled by the insurance company, who will have considered all options before paying out - or not if they consider replacement a fair and usual outcome

OP has no recourse now. The claim has been settled and the other party is out of pocket because of OPs machine. That's it!

I think there is a moral obligation to pay too. (Not that's got anything to do with anything .) If my washing machine had left someone out of pocket I would want to compensate them. The fact the neighbours got a new kitchen out of it is irrelevent.

Jesse It is in the opening post that the neighbour brought it to OP's attention as soon as they noticed it, and then subsequently were away a lot.

OP should then have fixed it immediately, not left notes with mobile numbers on asking to discuss etc...

It looks like these were several weeks in between OP being notified of the leak and her doing anything about it - it is this that has caused the problem.

The neighbours do have an obligation at law to mitigate their losses, which is exactly what they did when they brought it to her attention that there was a leak.

Bottom line is that OP should have better maintained her machine. She didn't, and it is this that has caused the loss to the neighbour.

OP, I would pay up if I were you, if he is a professional landlord, he will have landlord's insurance which will pay his costs in the event that he has to sue you for it. You are quite likely to lose (on the info you have given) and will have to pay both the £1,000 and also (potentially) court costs.

...and I'm not trying to be rude, I am just genuinely surprised that anyone actually lacks the insight to see that they are in the wrong in such a situation.

Battery the OP says that the neighbour explained that the leak had been noticed several weeks before the neighbour told the OP about it. And nomama it is relevant because the OP's liability to the neighbour could be reduced due to the neighbour's contributory negligence.

Not after the settlement has been made.

OP was, by her own account, also lax in following this up. The settlement has been made and the downstairs owner is out of pocket. She cannot argue in retrospect and should have chased the management company more rigorously instead of assuming she was right and ignoring the situation. Her assertion ion emails that she wouldn't pay etc are just bluster, the landlord was probably fully aware of that fact and so ignored her.

I am not saying the other party has been wholly fair, but OP has contributed to her own misery here. Her first action was, apparently, not to get her machine looked at but to go to the flat to discuss the problem and then wait until they complained again and done something that she thought constituted proof it was her fault before she had the machine fixed. THAT makes her negligent.

Arguing the toss now is irrelevant. She owes the man to make him whole as she is the root cause of his problem and he has every right to ask for 100% reparation.

Actually, in fairness, it looks like this is the timeline of events

1. Neighbour reports leak to caretaker
2. Caretaker reports leak to OP
3. Op then leaves notes for neighbour
4. Several weeks pass
5. Op catches up with neighbour who then says that the leak has been there for a few weeks.

Had OP acted immediately, i.e. actually had her machine repaired at stage 3, not left notes etc, then those few weeks would never have passed.

Jesse I don't think you really understand the principle of contrib, if you genuinely think OP has a chance with that one.

hope you get it sorted op.

The timeline of events is

1. Neighbour reports leak to caretaker
2. Caretaker reports leak to me on a Friday night
3. On seeing the note I immediately go down to the flat. There is no answer so I leave a note for neighbour including my number. I went away on Sat and when I get back on sunday my note was still on their doormat.
4. On monday, the neighbour texts me. I tell him i can't see any water in my flat but am looking into it and ask how long it has been going on. He replies 'a few weeks but we have been away a lot'.
5. On same day I tell caretaker I cannot see any leak in my flat having checked the sink pipes which is what he told me it probably was and he helps me check the washing machine. Source of leak is found and a repair man comes at 8 the following morning to fix.

I cannot see in the lease any covenant relating to insurance excesses. A few more facts which seem to be becoming more relevant:

• the managing agent which sent the first email saying I would be liable has been replaced with a new agent since the leak occurred in March. I am not sure if they are aware of this matter.
• the owner of the flat below me is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Mgmt Co but is sending me emails directly including his bank account details rather than asking the new mgmt agent to resolve this.

I would expect this man to be quite savvy about how this works so am not clear why he isn't getting the managing agent involved. I have been told that sometimes a managing agent who has chosen a high excess to reduce the premium pays the insurance excess on behalf of claimants and am wondering if this has happened here and that is why he is personally contacting me.

I am slightly suspicious of this man and his claim as he has been pretty unneighbourly since the outset:

• his tenants are his daughter and son in law and the son in law has told me he delayed in reporting the leak.
• the owner didn't tell me the size of the claim or the size of the excess until 6 months after it occurred. By then it was all repaired so there has been no way to see the damage and understand what happened. As he hadn't contacted me for 4 months I though the matter was closed.
• when I asked via email for photos / docs including evidence he had paid 1k excess, he did not reply and then 4 weeks later asked me again at an owners meeting to pay the money. When i mentioned my email he said he hadn't seen it.
• when he did finally send the docs, they are all editable word docs not photocopies of signed documents which look official eg the claim has a curly font name printed on it not a real signature. The quotes they say they submitted to the insurance co are just an word doc letter not official builder quotes.
• he told me the ins paid out 5k and he had to pay the rest. The copy of the insurance claim letter showing an excess of 1k had been paid had a figure blacked out but you can see through it a little bit and it's 9k and not 5k. He's been trying to guilt trip me by lying about how much he has had to pay out.

Of your email below, the only thing of any relevance is if the insurance claim is entirely fraudulent. His position on the board, his choice of tenant; his choice not to involve the agent - all irrelevant. If you doubt the documents are genuine, ask the insurance company for original copies, or if they refuse, tell him you refuse to pay on the basis you suspect faked document, and get ready to go to court.

So the starting point is as I thought - the neighbour had had a leak for several weeks before his tenant told anyone about it. OP could probably have been a bit more proactive looking for the source before Monday, but she did deal with it relatively quickly.

OP, it's neither here nor there how much the kitchen cost or the insurer paid out overall. The only thing that you need proof of is that the excess was indeed 1000, and you can get that easily enough by asking the managing agent for a copy of the policy, if you don't have one already. Or you can go straight to the insurer and get a copy because you are also an Insured under the policy and so have a right to see it. As for whether the agent pays excesses on behalf of flat owners, that's also easily checked by asking the agent.

Now, if the neighbour did indeed shell out 1000 then he has a claim against you to recover that loss because your leaking machine caused the damage. Basic principles are that he had a duty to mitigate his loss and (I think that battery and I will have to agree to differ here) his compensation could be reduced the the extent that he himself caused the damage.

What you need to know is whether there would still have been over 1000 worth of damage if you'd been told about the leak as soon as the tenant noticed it. That's probably a bit difficult to assess though, but might possibly be something in a loss adjuster's report on the damage for example. If it was only the tenant's delay that caused the damage to go over 1000 quid then you could arguably get away with only paying an amount equivalent to the extent of the damage that had been caused by the time the tenant first noticed the leak. However you are never going to be able to argue that you should not be paying anything.

Interested to see how it all turns out.

Blimey! Who on earth has a £1k excess? I just renewed our insurance and our excess is £50.

excess can really affect your insurance rates. raising the excess can make a lot of sense in many cases.

It depends on how you think of insurance, and I think many think of it in a strange way. Insurance, IMHO, is for things that you can't bear the cost of. I keep excess high so my rates are low (you have to price it out. sometimes you don't get a huge discount for high excess).

@OP I don't know what is the legality of it, but in some cases I might feel obligated to help pay if the cause was my negligence. However,

the tenant (the owner's son in law) told me it had been leaking for a few weeks but 'they had been away a lot'.

that says it all to me. A small leak would never cost a 1K in bills (water stain that needs to be dried, plastered and repainted MAYBE). We had a small leak and all it left was a watermark. A little paint (about 20 pounds!) fixed the damage.

You are basically being asked to pay 1K for a small leak where if all parties were diligent (and it sounds like you were) would cost 100 pounds on a bad day. Seems very fishy to me.

What was the actual damage to his flat caused by your leak?

Of your email below, the only thing of any relevance is if the insurance claim is entirely fraudulent. His position on the board, his choice of tenant; his choice not to involve the agent - all irrelevant. If you doubt the documents are genuine, ask the insurance company for original copies, or if they refuse, tell him you refuse to pay on the basis you suspect faked document, and get ready to go to court.

what is the law in this case? I am new to the UK, so I don't know. I have lived in jurisdictions where if you are a tenant and you don't report an emergency to the landlord right away (say, a leak), the tenant is liable for the damage. of course, in this case the LL is going after the OP because he is related to the tenant.

It also seems rather odd to me that someone's liability is dependent on someone else's choice of excess.

the son in law has told me he delayed in reporting the leak

This seems to me to be the key point. If people, through no fault of their own, don't realise there is a leak so it continues for a long time causing extensive damage, that's one thing. If they know, and for whatever reason leave it to continue and the damage to increase, that's quite another.

In your case the family seem to have let the leak carry on unchecked so it is likely what might have been a minor issue became very much worse. In circumstances like that I don't see that it is fair for you to pay the entire excess (though it probably is fair for you to pay some). They should contribute to the excess just as their inactivity contributed to the amount of damage.

Just out of interest, for all those who are incredulous at the thought of a £1000 excess, I have a £1000 excess for my home insurance. I have high value items and it makes sense for us. Fortuanately, we have never made a claim so are 'quids in' I review it carefully each year.

OP, what about making the nieghbour an offer. You agree that your washing machine leaked and damaged your nieghbours property - so it sounds like you should reimburse him for something at least. It's hard to determine how much so how about offering him a few hundred. If you stick your heels in it might encourage him to pursue you for the full £1000.

I think a lot of the other points that you raise are irrelevent.

I don't suppose that you have anything in writing from them saying that they took a few weeks to notify you about the leak so it would end up being irrelevent if you got to the small claims court.

I don't suppose that you have anything in writing from them saying that they took a few weeks to notify you about the leak so it would end up being irrelevent if you got to the small claims court.

she has at least one person who will support her claim it was a small leak (the repair guy). He might be in a position to say that yes it's odd it caused 9k of damage if notified immediately.

writtenguarantee you said "It also seems rather odd to me that someone's liability is dependent on someone else's choice of excess".

The choice of excess and the OP's liability are unconnected. Put very simply, the OP is liable for the full repair cost of the kitchen.Let's say that was 7000. 1000 of that cost was paid by the neighbouring landlord (NL) and 6000 was paid by the insurance company.

Now, NL is out of pocket 1000 so he can sue OP for that. However if it wanted to, the insurer could also bring what is called a "subrogated claim" against OP to recover its 6000 loss. If the OP had separate insurance then the insurance company would probably do just that, as her insurer would pay out. However here the OP and NL have the same insurer so the insurer would just be suing itself!

If the excess was smaller then the insurer would have paid a larger proportion of the repair costs and NL would be suing OP for less. But her overall liability would be exactly the same. Does that make sense?

£9k of damage for a leaky washing machine??

Must have been gushing down the walls! Unless they just ignored it for ages then decided to get a new kitchen...?

I think he's a chancer. The documentation sounds dodgy and his approach to you an afterthought. Bet he doesn't take it any further.

I bet if they'd told you immediately, repairs would have amounted to nothing more than a lick of paint.

Sounds like the management company was involved initially but not anymore. I'd reinvolve them and point out that you weren't involved promptly and when you asked for clarification didn't get any.

Many home insurance policies have a clause which doesn't permit you to leave the house unoccupied for a certain amount of time. Check what your policy says.

If the excess was smaller then the insurer would have paid a larger proportion of the repair costs and NL would be suing OP for less. But her overall liability would be exactly the same. Does that make sense?

indeed. that's the story I had in my head. But I didn't know they had the same insurer.

But then, wouldn't the OP go to her insurer to cover the damage and pay her excess? Also, wouldn't any insurer simply go after the OP to cover its costs? if the OP is truly liable, I don't understand why the insurer wouldn't do that.

The OP and the NL are both insured under one single block policy. So the OP has the same 1000 excess.

Also, wouldn't any insurer simply go after the OP to cover its costs? if the OP is truly liable, I don't understand why the insurer wouldn't do that.

If the OP was insured by a different company, NL's insurer very likely would do that. But she is insured by the same company, so the insurer doesn't gain anything by pursuing OP.

If the OP was insured by a different company, NL's insurer very likely would do that. But she is insured by the same company, so the insurer doesn't gain anything by pursuing OP.

This all seems very odd to me. It seems then the OP should have been consulted by the common insurer as she is the one paying out.

Nope. NL has insurance to pay for repairs to any damage to his property, howsoever caused. However his insurance requires him to pay the first 1000 of any claim.

The insurance company doesn't give a toss whether or not NL tries to recover that 1000 from the party that caused the damage.

Any update OP?

Hi Washerwoman2,

I realise this is an old thread but wondered how this ended up?
I am a litigation solicitor and hope you did not act on the advice here. LOL.
I am sorry to say you are definitely liable to pay the insurance excess. The case law is clear - you are liable for the damage caused to your neighbours property (Rylands v. Fletcher). He does not need to proof of negligence. The comparison above with leaking pipes does not hold water! Sorry, couldn't resist. A judge would work on the assumption you would know there was a high probability a leak might occur from the machine at sometime, you accepted the risk in using the machine. your neighbour was not part of that decision and cannot share the risk you decided to take. Pipework under floorboards s not generally expected to leak (or it would not be put there) so when it does it is treated differently.

I have seen many similar cases end with disappointment for the misinformed. I hope you were lucky and he has backed off or you paid up.

If he has taken you to court it is almost certain you have lost with costs.

The law says you have damaged someone else's property and must pay.

J.