Paying repair to neighbour property

[anothernewuser]

Hi, we live in a flat and a few days back our washing machine started leaking. We only discovered it when downstairs flat owner came to say that there is a leak on their ceiling and walls. We've paid for leak repair and now have to pay for redecoration of that flat and I accept this responsibility. The dispute however is about the cost of repair - they invited the painter without agreeing the quotation with us and having done a quick check I have a reasonably lower quotation for the same job. Our insurance doesn't cover 3rd party damage so have to pay cash. Where do I stand in terms of disputing costs? if it makes any difference, it's not a council block.

Thank you @Kirinm, the amount is way much lower than £10k, means small claims court I'd imagine? When you say "costs aren't generally recoverable" - does this mean "transactional cost" of this court (sorry, I'm not sure about terminology)? the fee which they will have to pay to claim via this route? would I be liable for this cost? and will this court hear my side of the story or will they automatically grant neighbours what they want?

By costs I meant legal fees. I had a quick Google (I don't do small claims work) and they may be able to recover a small fixed fee (£80) but you may also be responsible for disbursements.

Disbursements will include the cost of issuing a claim that is paid to the court. Again, that depends on the value of the claim. You can Google the court fees. If it were to proceed to a hearing there may also be a hearing fee. Whether you pay those costs depends on who is deemed to have won.

You can admit liability for causing the damage but at the same time you can dispute quantum (the value of the claim). You ought to make an offer based on your quotes and then you can demonstrate to the court that you've tried to settle the claim. If the court decides your offer was reasonable and your neighbour hasn't been able to show he mitigated his loss - you may 'win' and pay no costs.

What is the difference between the two figures?

How much are they c

How much are they claiming, is it so unreasonable?

The issue op is that it can't have been repaired properly because it's not dry, so you're going to get them coming back in the near future to complain that the stain has come back through.

Painting costs can vary quite a bit.

the quality of the paint used makes a difference. We have rooms that were painted by our builder with the cheapest paint available. It can’t be wiped at all. It is awful. As we have slowly repainted, we have made sure to use a really high quality, easy to clean paint. I would not agree to anything else being used in my house ever again. (If the damaged area had the cheaper paint I would expect to pay the upgrade price between midrange and the high price myself. )

the quality of the painter varies wildly. There are some who don’t bother masking off areas, who will just use a sprayer, or are ridiculously sloppy. Even with 3 quotes, I would want 3 quotes from painters whose work I could see. It’s probably because I have seen some really awful paint jobs over the years, like moving into flats where they painted over the glass in the windows awful.

so in short, a low quote from a painter scares me.

I don’t understand how the managing agent can refuse to claim under insurance. I live in a block of flats and there have been a few leaks causing damage. It has always been claimed under buildings insurance - that is what it is there for! The only times it hasn’t been claimed is if the cost of the repair is less than the excess.

It's not a claim that would fall under a buildings policy. The contents of a leaseholders property has caused damage to another leaseholders property. That's how I'd read it anyway.

But an escape of water has caused damage to the building. We have had several similar claims, either from flat above or from our own flat. I can’t remember insurance ever refusing to pay out (albeit never the full amount)!

The buildings insurance will be on the property itself. It makes no difference that it is a different flat. There may be some dispute over who pays the excess however.

For some reasons there is incredibly high premium to water escape on this building insurance, eight times higher than any other case so it's more expensive than the case itself. Not sure why it was accepted like this