to feel the landlord is being unreasonable?

[Yolo89]

So my husband left the tap running and the sink overflow failed, causing water to leak two floors below. They came and without really looking told us that the sink overglow was blocked. It isnt and there is no way they could know unless they took apart the sink. Now they are trying to charge us £500 for repairs for the leak in two flats.

There could be old leak damage from the boiler leaking too - how wpuld we know what is what?

They are also only giving us 14 dats to pay.

please help - what are my rights?

Qhen the boiler in the flat above leaked, they never came and fixed the leak damage.

Thet also tried to make us pay for our boiler when it leaked even though i found out it was defective. Funnily when I brought it up they never mentioned again.

Hence there is no trust

*My god. Are there so many morons in the world.
Clearly some people have never been landlords. If you’re a landlord you get landlord insurance. For exactly this occurance. *

And as many posters have already said, the 500 sounds like the insurance excess, which the person causing the damage should be liable for. Water damage would cost a LOT more, especially if there is enough water to damage two floors below. Mine was $85k on a single story house with a concrete slab, but fortunately only had to pay the $500 excess.

I literally despair with the utter stupidity of some people.

Quite.

Been there and got the t shirt when living in a mansion block type place except the director of the leaseholders wanted £18 grand! Exact same circumstances in that a tap was left running but the sink was blocked (the overflow doesn’t work if effectively it is moving water into the same blocked pipe).

I refused to pay ultimately and was pissed off because my own landlord did not have their own insurance and was reliant on the overall building one despite this being against the terms of the tenancy.

It wasn’t his fault for the massive bill though and the only reason I was asked to pay it was due to some really vindictive retired lawyer (the insurance paid out but she wasn’t happy with that).

Legally I’m still unsure whether I should have had to pay. The claim was negligence. Whatever you do don’t put anything in writing or via email. You may have fucked up already if your husband is openly admitting it

Also agree £500 seems low and might be the excess but do not in any circumstances offer to pay it in writing otherwise this could be construed as admitting liability and having to pay for absolutely everything (including the insurers expensive legal fees).

Deny deny deny. Try and be nice but keep things verbally and without prejudice!

An overflow tap and compensate for the overflow. Yabu

Insurer has the right to pursue if negligence even after paying out. My advice above is practical rather than taking any moral stance. No way I’d pay 18k for something the insurer paid out on. They didn’t even question it until someone started shit stirring. Ultimately paying for just the excess is getting off lightly but do not in any way admit to liability as it could mean paying for everything. I imagine the total cost is closer to 10 grand than 500 quid

Deny deny deny

...and people say landlords have no morals?!

It didn’t cost the landlord or the tenants anything. This was the insurance company after the money. I’d have paid the excess or any out of pocket expenses but you’re on the hook for everything if you admit anything.

Trust me I learned my lesson and will never ever make a similar mistake. I still think that’s what insurance is for though. It’s like if you prang your car people think they’ll just pay out but in reality they can refuse to (and get sued by the other driver for the whole sum) if it’s deemed your fault which makes the whole point of insurance pointless in my view

I suggest you get proper advice rather than from here. Your insurer or bank might have legal advice line or maybe cab or shelter.

And yes I’m immoral for not wanting to pay close to 20 grand. The circumstances were exceptional in that the person driving it was just plain evil. The insurance company tried to bat her off but she harangued them into taking action.

Anyway shoot me or not. OP needs to take my advice. It’s not a case of 500 quid. I’d happily have paid 500 quid immediately but would meant paying close to 20 grand ish

@meandwinealone you get tensnts insurance which covers your contents, any contents belong to your landlord, and liability for any accidental damage to the property by you.

I had it when I lived in rented. Of course it exists.

Op, I'm guessing the plug was in? And that's why it overflowed? Because th over flow only takes so much water at a Time, if the tap is discharging more water than th over flow can drain then it Will offer flow th sink.

I think in this case it would be your husband at fault, I'm sorry.

In this case the leak was primarily caused by the husband's actions.

As has been said, overflows are not intended to cope with continuously gshg taps, they are easily overcome if you walk away from a fully open tap.Oh, and the sink probably was blocked.... by the plug!

The damage done to both properties will easily amount to much more than £500. Just fully drying out the downstairs properties will take many weeks, even months, and then redcorating.

I suspect OP has been VERY LUCKY that she has only been asked to cover insurance excess. What her husband did was negligence and so they could be held 100% liable for all costs on their own insurance, who may then decide not to pay due to said negligence!

If I were the OP I would be being very nice to both neighbour and paying the £500. But I would also be worried that her landlords insurers might have another look and assign more costs... it can be tricky when multiple insurers each cover different aspects of a case.

But, the root cause was her DHs negligence and that will always cost!

Please get proper advice. The only person with stated relevant expertise is saying something different from the majority of posters.

The leak occurred due to her husband's actions. He is the responsible party in this therefore he foots the cost not other flats. If they claim off their insurance they will just come after him anyway.

It's not the same as car insurance - I was flooded by the flat two up and had to pay my own excess. I assumed the same of you but was told this wasnt the case.

I am speaking to my friend who is a lawyer. Not an expert in this area but can cast s legal eye over the emails.

I dont like that we are being accused of a blockage which supposedly causef this and then when I say that you cant prove it was blocked as you did not inspect it, then they come back and state that even if it wasnt blocked it still would have happened (which i dont necessarily believe)

So are they going back on their blockage accusation?

These people try it on.and see what they can get.

How can they prove it cost £500 and why should I blindly pay.

It was not a gushing tap. My husband of thought he turned it off. He did not do a lot of damage like some are stating and it probably took 4 hours of work to fix from.what I saw of the contractor.

Funnily when my flat flooded they didnt get anyone to repair really.One they did in.five minutes.

You are literally ignoring every reply over five pages. I don't know why you bothered posting.

There's no magic get out of jail free card. Your husband caused the damage and the landlord is legally able to charge you for the cost of fixing it.

He's given you a list and total of £500, which to be honest is not a lot of money for that sort of damage. Accept it, pay it, and if you feel you have a cowboy landlord then move out.

Being an adult means taking responsibility, stop trying to blame everyone else.

Tbh this is why insurance is so expensive and why they often refuse to pay out. They know people are lyinging

Op, again, was rhe issue the plug was in?

If there was a blockage and the plug was not in, yes it would over flow. If there was no blockage, then it would only over flow if the plug was in.

Have they been told it was not in when it was? And this is why they think there was a blockage?

I can only repeat what I said yesterday (and I do work in the lettings industry).

Yolo your husband made an admission that he had left the sink plugged with the tap running - a blockage that caused an overflow and damage to other people's property.

That they moved more quickly than your landlord has done in the past is of no consequence. The owners of the 2 flats that were damaged have every right to have their properties reinstated as quickly as possible. The immediate works may have only taken a few hours but neither you nor we know how much more remedial works there may be yet to do.

Your lawyer friend will need to be very careful if they tell you anything that is outside their knowledge or to give you free advice that you then act upon... it could rebound on them professionally!

Time to stop protesting and to start thinking about how to get this organised legally, so there can be no more charges applied to you. A cheque with "In full and fina lpayment" written on it - ask your lawyer friend about how to do that properly!,

You should pay because your husband left the tap running at a rate and for a time long enough to cause the sink to overflow and damage two flats below! The ‘blockage’ is a red herring and iirelevant - as if the tap was left on for long enough and not at a trickle the overflow -even if in perfect working order- would not have coped. They are not made for that. If the sink pipe was also blocked to some extent (and any nornal use would cause some sediment to settle, even if you never noticed it) it would speed up the process of the water not being able to drain away fast enough. At the end of the day that is not relevant unless said sink was noticeably blocked, you had complained, and it had not been fixed. Then you might argue that is a contributing factor. But that is not the case so stop hiding behind this.

I don't understand how your landlord doesn't have insurance that will cover this? They probably do but don't want their premiums going up. Get them to claim off the insurance as it'll be paid from your rent.

£500 sounds like an excess to me. If it did that amount of damage they’ll have to let it dry out/knock off plaster/inspect/replace all sorts.

The emails are irrelevant other than as admission on your DH part that he left the plug in and the water running.

Some sinks don’t even have overflows (my bath doesn’t for eg)

Would the blockage have made a difference? No. The sink would still have overflowed - an overflow is not made to take away all the water from a running tap.

Why didn’t you have renters insurance yourself? That’s a legal requirement of a lot of tenancies specifically for this reason.

OP YABVU and completely ignoring the comments on her. your dh left the tap running which caused the leak which mean you and him as tennets should be held accountable for it. Pay the money and stop trying to find a loophole. If anyone is a cowboy here is sounds like you

@CuriousaboutSamphire has really good advice, OP.

Yes, it sucks and everyone will have sympathy for you. Of course your DH didn't intend to cause the damage and it was accidental, but as tenants whose actions caused a leak (it didn't fill itself) you are still liable and responsible for the cost to fix the damage to your flat and the two flats below you. Water is surprisingly awfully damaging (electrics, plaster, beams, ceilings), it's not just a case of stuff drying out.