Does this person have a valid claim?

[liz4change]

I'm director of a freehold company for a block which has a storage room. The storage area isn't segregated (ie it's just a room) and the residents who use it pay a nominal sum to use it.

One person's posessions were damaged during works - the contractors deny any responsibility which I agree with.

This person has argued from the get go that the freeholder is liable and should compensate him for damage. They've argued that as the short written contract doesn't explicitly say that items are stored at own risk that the principles of implied terms mean that the FH is liable. They are claiming that the replacement cost of the damaged items is about £11k. I doubt very much that they were worth more than about £3k.

I also doubt very much that we can claim on the building insurance. The fabric of the building wasn't damaged. So any compensation will likely come out of the company reserves, ie out of the pockets of other residents.

Do they have a remotely credible claim or is this massive CFery? They were paying a sum far below what any commercial storage facility or firm of movers would charge excluding insurance. As a homeowner they should also know the difference between buildings insurance and contents insurance and do not ever seem to have checked that they were adequately insured.

You’ve said that you agree with the contractors denying any responsibility, but if they damaged items during works then it is their responsibility, provided the resident was storing said items correctly and hadn’t previously been asked to move them for the duration. A claim should be made against the contractors’ insurance.

The resident may well have contents insurance, but it rarely covers accidental damage caused by repairs and maintenance, and if they are claiming the items were damaged by hired contractors during building works, their insurer will automatically advise them to pursue a claim with them or with the owner of the building – hence I expect why they’ve latched on to you. It would be complicated and unlikely that they’d be awarded damaged against the management company, unless they could prove the management company acted negligently in hiring the contractors / didn’t ensure they had appropriate insurances etc.

yes - why isn't the contractors responsible?

Charging people for the room does also creates some liabilty by those charging - i would have thought (and i am a director of a flat mgt company) that anything communal is open to all, without cost - you can't have communal areas where only some are allowed normally. like bike stores should be open to all as all pay for the space/building costs. (but maybe only those who use it pay for locks on that door)

i'd have expected anyone with items in that space to be told to move them when works was happening if there was any risk to the items.

The damage happened when a soil pipe that was being cleaned from elsewhere in the building cracked and sprayed "matter" around. So contractors weren't physically near the items.

They repaired the damaged pipe and mopped up but have consistently disclaimed liability.

The room is kept locked so isn't accessible to all.

If the damage was caused by an issue with works then in the first instance I would suggest looking at the contract with the company who did the work. While the didn't damage the pipe it was in the delivery of their works that it happened, I would expect this type of situation to be called out in the contract.

Charging for use of the space and not stating liability adds complexity if the contractor isn't liable. Take it as a lessons learned opportunity and address it going forward and potentially seek legal advice on how to proceed.

I suspect the issue is that because the soil system was being actively worked on at the time, their insurer is denying coverage and instead pushing liability to the contractor on the basis that their works may have been improperly carried out, causing the burst pipe. I don’t think this resident is being a “CF / cheeky fucker” (what is it with MN’s obsession with this grating phrase??) just somebody who is understandably upset that they’ve lost thousands of pounds worth of belongings through no fault of their own and is coming up against dead ends at every turn in terms of who’s willing to accept liability.

As a director of the management company I’d encourage them to persist with a liability claim against the contractor, and agree with previous posters for yourself and other directors to get legal advice around your own liability as you charge for use of a space.

was it reasonable for the contractor to check the other end of the soil pipe when doing work at one end? - could they even tell the soil pipe goes through the storage room?

or was a it reasonable for the freeholder to allow an soil pipe to be in an area where items are stored without warning people that there is a risk. no idea. I'd assume basement areas may have this issue.

it is probably NOT allowed in the leases for a communal area to be rented out/used for storage. So isn't insured for that purpose either.

if the work cracked a soil pipe in someone's flat which then caused damage- more clear cut. but they are generally all in bathrooms and bathrooms generally all built over each other with not much contents in them.

however, i would never have stored £11k worth of items in an area which i hadn't ensured was covered by my own contents insurance.

So i'd check the building insurance - see if that is covered there.

if not, then just decline their claim. if they want to sue, they can and then yes, if they win, all leaseholders will have to pay towards it (and of course you stop anyone putting anything in the communal areas)