Can a dementia sufferer be deemed liable for accidental damage?

[GLASGOWGIRL82]

A couple of months ago my dad accidentally flooded his downstairs neighbour. A tap had been left running in the bathroom overnight (either by my dad or one of his carers) and a bar of soap had fallen in to the sink blocking the drain.
My dad and his neighbour are both council tenants, my dad doesn't have home insurance but the neighbour does. Last week, the neighbour approached me and said that as the insurance company couldn't pursue my dad they were looking to take me to court as I have Power of Attorney over his affairs. He said I could just settle with him to avoid legal fees and he wanted £200 which is the amount he said it cost him to replace flooring. I agreed to pay it on behalf of my dad as a goodwill gesture but I was clear to him that I thought the housing association were actually liable and not my dad.
There was no overflow in the sink and no space on the sink to put a bar of soap. it's a wetroom bathroom but the water didn't drain away as the floor drain only works when the shower is switched on so the water flowed out to the hallway to the flat below.
I have now received a letter from a company on behalf of the neighbours insurers. They say that in paying the £200 to the neighbour my dad has accepted liability. The £200 is the excess and not the cost to replace the flooring and they want payment within 14 days so over £1,100 to the insurance company and another £800 to the company working on their behalf.
In my opinion the housing are actually liable and I did put that across to the housing officer but they do not accept liability as they state it wouldn't have happened if the tap had been turned off. However, they did replace the bathroom sink for one with an overflow and an indent for soap shortly after the flood as in the housing officer's own words 'it's a design flaw'. No mention was made of the wet room drain so no idea if that's the usual design.
My dad is 90, he has dementia, he's registered blind and is partially deaf. Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of this? Can he be held accountable for his actions?

Does anyone know if the water should have gone down the drain in the wet room or if it’s normal for a drain to only activate when the shower is switched on?

If there is a waste pump it is normally activated by sensors on the supply pipes to the shower, so it would only come on if the shower is on. It would not activate if the sink overflows.

I also still believe that in fitting a new bathroom sink the housing was admitting liability as they stated the lack of overflow was a design flaw

The lack of an overflow contributed to the issue but it was caused by the tap left running. If the tap had not been left running the lack of an overflow would not have caused any problems. Primary liability will therefore lie with the person who left the tap running. The council may have some liability but I doubt they are liable for the full amount. Even if the council does have some liability, it will be up to you acting on behalf of your father to pursue them.

I don’t believe the floor cost over £1000.

It is highly unlikely that the insurance company is trying to defraud you by demanding more than they have actually spent.

UnderTheSeaWithMe - As BubblesBuddy says, the householder claims against their insurance and the insurer will then recover the money from the person who caused the loss. That is the way it works. And that is what is happening here. The OP's father is being pursued by the insurance company, not the next door neighbour. Also, the OP has not said that her father does not have any money. Even if he doesn't have any money, the council are not his insurers so the neighbour's insurance can't claim from them. Their claim is against the OP's father.

I'm not sure at all that OP's main question has been addressed, which is: Can a dementia sufferer be held liable for an act in negligence? Is the dementia a defence to a claim for negligence?

To what extent can a dementia sufferer claim (through a litigation friend) that they took as much care as they could reasonably be expected to the given their condition?

Is the test for negligence what the reasonable unimpaired person would have done? If not, doesn't that discriminate against those with dementia and other similar impairments?

The only reading I've done on this suggests that one of the tests for negligence is whether or not the harm caused was objectively reasonably foreseeable. It matters not what was contemplated at the time.

If you want an answer to this you're going to have to consult a specialist lawyer, or contact Age Concern or other charity.

I certainly wouldn't hand over another penny without at least a receipt for the flooring.

Ndn is not out of pocket, it is the insurer trying to recover their costs.

The letter from the insurance company states that my dad admitted liability by making payment. My dad doesn’t even know I made the payment and I only paid it as a goodwill gesture to keep goodwill relations with the neighbour. The letter then goes on to say ‘ we look forward to receiving within 14 days a binding admission of liability which you accept you are not entitled to withdraw and confirmation that our fees will be met’.

I won’t be paying anything else without seeking legal advice. I had contacted the housing association and they didn’t seem to think my dad could be held liable. They said if I wanted to pay the £200 as a goodwill gesture then I should do it but they didn’t seem to think there was a legal obligation.

Sounds like a nightmare and lots of incorrect/unhelpful and UN sympathetic posts.
My take on it is you don't need to be negligent to be liable, most car accidents are not due to negligence but are still deemed to be sometimes fault and therefore paid by them.
Secondly the insurance company knows all the tricks, the neighbour has just claimed and now the insurance company is minimising their loss. They are basically experts in claiming money off people.
Their claiming liability by paying some money is not true, it's a small piece of evidence but the courts would not automatically take it as admission. That's based on the facts of the case not whether you paid money. They are just trying to put pressure to settle quickly.
I'm not sure what to suggest as personally i think this would come under occupiers liability or similar. Claiming on to the carer would be even more complicated.
My recommendation would be see citizens advice, and the solution might be to either not pay and see if they bother taking it to court, or if you don't want the stress, saying he doesn't have the money and writing back with a payment plan paying say half or a third of the money over a couple of years as finally settlement. Make sure you Mark the letter"without prejudice" so they don't try to trick of saying you've accepted liability again.

Insurance company trying it on because that's what they do.

Write to the insurers and state that your dad has never admitted liability.
He has dementia and can never admit liability in law because HE LACKS CAPACITY.

You didn't admit liability on his behalf. That's not what Power of Attorney covers.
Your gift of £200 to the neighbour was a separate matter.

You really need some proper legal advice. Your ndn isn't going after you, it's his insurance company - which is pretty standard tbh.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I was going to write to the insurers myself but I think I should get a lawyer to deal with it. I'm still really not convinced that my dad left the tap on. He was adamant he didn't and said it must have been one of the carers but as he has dementia I've got no way of knowing for sure.

I think the insurance company are trying it on. I would seek legal advice. But if I didn't want to do that I would go back explaining exactly what you gave said here. That you do not admit liability and the put was a GOGW and this was made clear at the time. That you think the issue was caused by a design fault that had now been rectified by the housing association and your father is a vulnerable adult with dementia.

Two points to note:

1. Someone who has POA does not have the right to conduct litigation on behalf of the patient. Therefore you cannot accept liability on his behalf.

1. A Third party is entitled to make an offer on behalf of a defendant and have that accepted. You accepted an offer to settle. The insurance company will have to accept that.