To say upstairs neighbour should pay?

[Leakingtoilet]

Looking for advice for anyone with knowledge about the law here. Daughter lives in a flat and 2 days ago the upstairs neighbours toilet flooded and came through the ceiling. Vague reason given was too much paper blocked the toilet and caused it to overflow. They have no lights because of this and need an emergency electrician due to fire risk.

Upstairs neighbour is refusing to pay and says they are not insured. Downstairs neighbour has told daughter that she shouldn't pay as she won't be able to get the money back.

Upstairs neighbour should definitely be paying imo but is there anything daughter and her partner can do to make neighbour pay?

Both flats are owned

AIBU to say neighbour should pay?

Just to add I have always rented so not in best position to advise her on this.

The Upstairs neighbours are at fault and will have to pay for all repairs

This.

Your daughter should be discussing this with her insurance company that's what they're for

I can't believe how clueless people are

Sorry to be blunt

The owners of the upstairs flat are complete and utter idiots for not having their flat insured unless they're just flat out lying so their premiums don't go up

The circumstances are important. Buildings insurance won't cover it when it was caused by the neighbour blocking their toilet with too much paper.

It is the job of buildings insurance on a block of flats to cover damage caused by a flat above. They can't not cover you because the person who damaged your flat was negligent.

Would your car insurance refuse to fix your car because the person who crashed into you was drunk?

In a flat it's not the owners job to take out buildings insurance, it's the management company. Flat-owners only need contents insurance, which is irrelevant, because it's buildings insurance that pays for water leaks.

Unfortunately it’s the hazard of living in flats and any it’s a MUST that anyone who lives in flats takes out home insurance.

Not her insurance company, unless you are speaking very loosely. She should be covered by an insurance policy that covers all flats, that was taken out be by the management company, not her personally.

So she should be discussing with whoever manages the building, who in turn speaks to the insurer.

There's no such thing as "home insurance", there's contents insurance and buildings insurance. Buildings Insurance is not taken out be flat-owners, the entity that granted the lease is usually responsible for building insurance. (It will be a requirement in the lease that they keep the building insured.)

This is not true. The upstairs owner (or their insurers) would only need to pay if you can prove the neighbour was at fault.

She should report to her insurers asap and they may choose to pursue recovery from the neighbour.

Also if mortgaged I believe mortgage lenders require you to have the(ir) building insured.

for 20+ years are mortgage providers have required this (which is my sole evidence but makes sense to me!)

The building would be insured by the freeholder. Building would be roof, walls, communal areas, electrics and plumbing.

That insurance would sort out both flats.

Contents would be insured separately by the leaseholders

Is there a residents association that your daughter pays into. It's part of this which in my experience pays the premiums for the insurance.

So upstairs neighbour is probably telling an untruth, however your dds insurer should be in the best position to advise!

I work in property management and all claims of this nature would be via the buildings insurance. Damaged contents would need to be claimed for via your own contents insurance.

If someone crashed into your car, you’d still claim via your own insurance and they’d look to surrogate their losses. It’s no different for your home I’m afraid.

Many blocks of flats don’t have a management company; mine doesn’t. I’m in Scotland so we don’t have all this leasehold stuff, but when my idiot upstairs neighbours flooded my bathroom so that the ceiling fell in, and then they did a moonlit flit without paying, my insurance company sorted it all out. I got everything back - even my excess. I think my premium went up by about a tenner. Well worth it.

As others have said, your DD needs to go through her insurance. They can chase up neighbour’s insurance if they are at fault and she will get her upfront payment back if this is proven to be the case. If the person above does not have insurance it is unlikely she will get her payment back but she will get the damage covered

Although the flats are owned is there a service charge?

This may pay for this sort of damage? Those that run the service charge may try to wiggle out or sorting the situation out so you may need to ask more than nicely!

My daughter lived in an upstairs flat with a toilet that leaked into the flat downstairs. I remember an unpleasant evening sorting it out.

Basically the saddle (these link the toilet to the communal vertical sewer pipe) wasn’t fitted properly to the main soil stack. The bath’s drain didn’t have any incline on it and so foul water collected and seeped out.

The actual repair isn’t that difficult but access is.

Does the building not have insurance or a sinking fund? Contact the management company for the block.

We've all had horrendous leaks this year all over the building and so they're claiming on the insurance

If in England or Wales any damage to structural elements of the building (including electrics, walls ceilings and other fixtures within the demise) should be covered by buildings insurance provided the cause of the damage is an "insured peril". (These will include escapes of water from a tank, apparatus or pipe provided this is "fortuitous" ie accidental rather than inevitable. )

The buildings insurance will be placed by the freeholder as the leaseholders don't (usually, unless the lease specifies otherwise) have actual ownership of the fixtures. If you don't own it, you can't insure it, although the insurer will recognise the "interest" of the leaseholders who have the sole right to occupy and use the demised part for x years.

It's important to recognise that property insurance and liability insurance cover totally different risks. Property insurance will pay out to reinstate damage regardless of fault if an insured risk has come to pass. The property insurer (in the name of the policyholder/freeholder - a principal known as subrogation) will then seek to recover its outlay if someone is at fault ie negligent. But unless the negligent party is well off or has his own liability insurance in place its probably not worth bothering.

If your daughter's contents have been damaged then she should have separate contents insurance to cover that. As above the contents insurer may then pursue another liable party if they have means/ liability insurance.

But you always start with a claim on a property insurance policy. Pursuing a liable party comes later, often never. You can't just claim on another party's liability insurance to cover your property reinstatement. Your loss first has to crystallise by either you or your insurer suffering reinstatement costs, albeit the dialogue can start at an early stage.

If the bulk of the loss is covered by property/ contents insurers, policyholders have little interest in any further pursuit and leave that the insurers to fight out.

The service charge does go to the management company and they buy a buildings insurance policy. Flat owners only need a contents policy.

Report it through the management building insurance. Just state that it was water coming through the ceiling from a leak above. The insurance will send a contractor to rectify. It's up to them to find the source, you can say you have no access to the area of the suspected source.
Alternatively pay for the work and then pass on the costs to the tenant above concerned. If they don't reimburse pursue through the small claims court.

I cannot get over the mindset of anybody whose toilet overflows and brings down a ceiling in the property below, leaving them with hazardous electrics and no light, and then says they are not going to pay. Who do they think is responsible for paying, if not them. It is the ultimate in arrogant entitlement - create a serious problem for someone else, and expect them to clear up your mess. No advice except that ultimately your DD can claim her repair costs back from small claims court if insurance route is unsuccessful. No way should she be out of pocket because of these shysters.