Help me see my neighbours perspective please!

[languageisleavingmeinsilence]

thanks for reading:

I let out a flat, one up one down maisonette. Tenants lived there for more than 5 years, they were ok. 3 years ago new owners moved in downstairs. Around 18 months ago those occupants contacted me to say there had been a leak. I got a plumber round to investigate and couldn't find a cause. Downstairs owners sent their plumber round, no one could figure it out. My plumber actually sat outside for an entire evening waiting for the drip drip to occur to see what my tenants had been doing. Eventually we found it was a hairthin crack in the bath (bath was around 4 years old). We replaced that bath with a reinforced bath and offered neighbour to repair the ceiling - neighbours said no, just wants to move on. Ok. About 4 months later, downstairs neighbour reports a second leak. We investigate, Again cant see anything. Staked the place out again! Seemed to happen when tenant had very full baths. Requested they no longer did this until we discovered what was causing the leak. Needless to say they just couldn't help it and continued having long deep baths. Ugh. Anyway we found that the overflow drain on the side of the bath had been knocked off by the tenant in some way and they put it back on, but not well and this caused the second leak. During this period I just thought it best to give them notice until we could figure out what on earth was happening - tenants that suddenly became reckless or just bad luck or what. We also planned to make the bathroom as watertight as a wet room and needed tenants to move out for this. DURING this notice period, I kid you not, the tenants said they accidentally left the shower running when positioned over the side of the bath so it flooded the bathroom, much to the annoyance of downstairs. For leaks 2 and 3 downstairs neighbours refused to alert my tenants when the leak happened, instead they waited until the morning to call me to then call my tenants. I told them I empathise and that the tenants had been given notice in any case and I couldn't do more than caution them to be more careful. I also provided my tenants with extra absorbent towels to put on the floor while using the bath because I couldn't understand how this could happen three times in the space of a year.

Neighbour downstairs contacts me and demands that I pay for the damage to the ceiling. I say 'we have insurance' - we are shared freeholders so have one building insurance policy. They refuse and tell me to make the claim. So I call the insurance company, they tell me only the owner of the damaged flat can do so. They refuse again on these grounds:

1. The insurance premium will increase and our lease says we should do-nothing to increase insurance premiums
2. They don't want to pay the excess
3. I am liable as owner of the property
4. they consider the problem to have been wear and tear so not eligible for an insurance claim

I offered to pay half the excess as we shared the cost of the insurance anyway. They refused and instead got someone round to fix and presented me with a bill of £2500. I had no insight into the appointment of the tradesperson, no evidence of the damage that needed to be repaired, and I called the insurance company who said the neighbours had never contacted them at all to ask whether premiums would increase, whether the claim would be eligible, nothing, but that from what I've told them it is a simple water escape issue that they deal with everyday.

So now we are going to court in the summer.

I cannot understand my neighbour. Why have insurance if you'll not use it? I can't see how I'm liable for my tenants' actions (leak 2 and 3). Excess is a bummer, but it's part of the insurance process. I could go on.

Please help me to see that I'm wrong. I need to work with this person for as long as we both own these properties (I can't see that I'll sell any time soon).

Why should they be out of pocket because of a problem "you" caused?

What? You can't understand why they are fucked of fat paying excess when it's not their fault at all, any of the three (!) times?

You're being very unreasonable.

*Fucked off at

So you had a decent family as tenants who had caused you no problems for years, who you evicted from their home because of a fault you couldn't or wouldn't fix.

You are an absolute disgrace. If you're having problems with downstairs now, I'd say it's karma.

This isn't about fault or fairness it's just about how insurance works in multiple occupancy buildings.

The neighbours were stupid not to take the advice of the insurers (yours and theirs) to make a claim.

You should not now have to pay for their stupidity however annoying it all was for them or however unfair it seems to those who haven't come across this before.

I don't own a car, but isn't it a similar situation - you have to make a claim through your own insurance whether or not you were to blame.

I do understand the point of insurance but not actually sure this would not be down to wear and tear anyway. I think this shipped sailed when you only offered to pay half of the insurance excess premium as you should have offered to cover the whole of it. I would be fed up if I was your neighbour.
You are even stating it isn't your fault. But realistically it is as you put these tenants in the flat that you own so it is your responsibility.

Yes they should not have gone ahead with repairs etc without consulting you first, but perhaps they feel that you are unreliable yourself? You haven't actually dealt with this very well I'm afraid. I do get your frustration but I don't think you were being fair stating you would pay half of the excess and then ignoring the fact that the premiums would go up etc.

For a happier outcome I think I would pay the bill, chalk it down to experience, handle any future situations better and try and maintain good relations with the downstairs neighbour. They have actually put up with quite a lot so far.

There’s no point comparing it to how car insurance works because it’s completely different.

Morally it feels unfair, legally I believe you did everything you could. Perhaps worth speaking to your insurers again for guidance?

I agree with you OP.
1 - this is exactly what insurance is for
2 - waiting until the next day to tell the tenants is negligence. Make sure this is brought up if you end up in court.

Hi thanks,

I am fully and adequately insured and wish I could use it.

The leaks were three completely different issues. I repaired each very well and those problems did not cause any further leaks, so I can't support your opinion there.

I can't claim from my insurance for damage to someone else's property - this is what the insurance company have told me. Not my rules at all. If I could have claimed from my insurance to cover their flat, I would certainly would have. That is why I am insured, after all.

It strikes me as a leap to assume I have made lots of money from letting the property out. In fact I often fid myself charging less than the local LHA which was the case here. I often take tenants who are in receipt of benefits too. Exorbitant I am not. I'm fair-minded and kept the rules.

Your message feels a little anti-landlord, but I could be wrong.

Cheers

You sound like you've been very reasonable, OP. I'm surprised at some of the blood thirsty responses on this thread.

It’s small claims court I assume. My neighbour took me, it was fine. I’m assuming you would still pay the excess-tell the court that-they’ll look favourably on you being reasonable.

Yes, some comments are bloodthirsty! I started this thread because I wanted to understand my neighbours' perspective better, and with those comments I have!

I've even come under fire for offering to pay have of the excess which I am not obliged to in anyway. I offered that to establish a precedent. We are shared freeholders, just two units under the freehold, let's go half on everything building related. I think that is fair. It is actually more than I am required to. I am required to be insured; I am.

The idea that landlords are responsible for tenants' actions is a strange one.

I asked my tenants to leave because I had to take out the entire bathroom (and kitchen as it goes, I don't want any more leaks if I can help it) so that I could effectively make it waterproof like a wetroom. My tenants didn't want to be moved and then moe back etc, so we agreed they would leave. I gave notice. All fine. Mutual respect both ways. I never have had problems with my tenants. I treat people well. I believe I have treated my neighbour well by doing, again, more than I am required to.

It is plain anti-landlord sentiment on here, which is said. It's an income, like any other, some of us do it well and to the best of our ability, some of us not.

Lots of assumptions about me not keeping up my property etc. All untrue, and in any case how would anyone on here know that!

It's a shame that MN turns so scathing and harsh, it's really not respectful or civil. There's even been swearing on here! It's not really my kind of environment, so I'll bid you all a good day.

Thanks all!

I’m not anti-landlord in the slightest. It amazes me that you can’t understand a basic principle: a fault on your property has damaged your neighbours’ property. Three times. You are the owner of the faulty property and should surely want to make sure your neighbours aren’t paying money to resolve the damage caused?! You could have done a few things to prevent this happening, namely ensuring your property is in good order and not leaking (clearly there have been faults as three leaks in one year is a lot); else claiming the cost of repairs from your tenants and ensuring the neighbours are reimbursed or taking out landlord’s insurance and claiming on that to reimburse your neighbours if you damage their property. What you chose to do is the bare legal minimum and expect your neighbours to foot at least half of not all of the additional costs. No wonder they’re tKing you to court, hardly neighbourly behaviour.

People are getting confused by what landlord’s insurance might cover, and what it’s possible to claim for.

The OP is not wrong that they cannot claim on their insurance. The damage was not to their property- on which the ‘landlord’ insurance is based.

The name is confusing people who have never been a landlord. They think it means you personally are insured against costs your tenants incur you.

It doesn’t mean that.

If the tenants were in a standard house and accidentally flooded their bathroom, causing damage to the rooms below, the OP could have claimed on their landlord insurance for that property. But because her tenants are in an upper floor property and the damage has been caused to a completely different property, she cannot make a claim as her landlord insurance doesn’t cover difference properties.

Yes, the people below with 3 leaks must be super pissed off and out of pocket but they’ve taken the wrong course of action, and their lack of communication has exacerbated any issues.

The OP has acted responsibly- it may not seem ‘fair’ but it is all reasonable and correct.

It could be the OPs responsibility if she was negligent. Three leaks seems quite a lot, I could see why the neighbours may think the OP didnt deal with the issue properly the first two times the problem was reported.

If she is negligent she is responsible for the costs of the repair and I don't see why the owners can't decide to ask her to pay for it rather than use their insurance. The article below says they could claim on their own insurance but their insurer would look to recoup costs from the OPs insurer if it was her fault/negligence.

I don't think you can force an injured party to claim on their insurance if they don't want to.

Sounds to me like it will depend on whether the courts find her negligent or not.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2007/jan/25/yourrights.legal

It isn't three leaks though. It's two leaks and then an act of negligence. Hence why I asked if the buildings insurance would even pay out on the last one (does it include accidental damage, or just water leaks from building fixtures and fittings? )

Hmmmm, so the last is an act of negligence by the tenants whom OP had already served notice to quit due to previous leaks? Hard to see how that makes OP negligent. Unless it does?? OP looks to have taken precautions. Even given them towels to not make a mess on the floor. Landlords can't barge in and infringe on tenants rights 'in case' a leak happens again. Tenants gave rights!!!

Then I consider the first two leaks. OP removed the offending bath and replaced with a reinforced one. No negligence there, I'd say. The second leak was because tenants didn't tell OP something was broken and 'fixed' it badly causing a leak. OP then repaired that. No negligence there.

Rather than negligence it sounds like bad luck and OP took reasonable steps at each.

I really don't think many landlords would have gone as far as OP.

OP makes a good point, they could be going to court for just the cost of the excess.

Just read the link. It advises not to go to court and instead go through insurance...
.

You say that after the first leak you "offered neighbour to repair the ceiling - neighbours said no, just wants to move on." So they were decent about it, twice, yet after the third time, you don't offer to repair the ceiling and make it their problem to solve, on top of all the problems your flat has caused them. So they've solved it and billed you as you offered in the first place, the problems persisted, and why on earth should they be out of pocket from a side-effect of your business. That's my take on their perspective.

I have an upstairs flat and landlord insurance. As the issue was caused via accidental damage by my tenents I claimed. And it was all fixed for by my insurers. It seems your insurers might be wanting the other owners insurers to settle so they save costs which isn’t on. Call them and escalate to management.

As for your tenents - this all sounds malicious and their fault and I would definitely be using some of their deposit to pay for the damage.

I think there are two options. Downstairs need to either claim on your insurance and if they refuse to do it what will they do if you refuse to pay their bill? He would have to issue a summons in the county court at which point the insurance company can step in and decide whether to settle it.

I had a similar issue with a car accident. The other party was at fault but refused to admit liability and said they would deal with it themselves (they did notify the insurer)

I just issued a letter before claim (county court process) to the other party for damages suffered and the insurer immediately stepped in and settled it much to their annoyance

Did you say that the tenants were there for 5 years and all ok?

Bath leaks, investigate, new bath. New leak, "overflow drain on the side of the bath had been knocked off by the tenant in some way" - is this connected to new bath being fitted so not really the tenant's fault? And then During this period I just thought it best to give them notice until we could figure out what on earth was happening. So, because the leak issue hadn't been resolved, you pissed off your tenants?

Is that correct?

I am not sure I understand you, OP. Why did you offer to pay only half of excess and not full excess?
Your neighbours got leak because of your flat - why should they pay excess or half of it?
We had a leak in our flat - we claimed it on building insurance but the owner of the flat responsible for the leak paid our excess. They haven’t even tried to offer half of it, just said we will pay the full amount. If they didn’t I would have been quite upset.

You evicted an NHS doctor and nurse, who have been good tenants for 6 years, during a pandemic?

Shame on you.