Two residents one lives directly above the other in a block of flats. The person on the lower floor is a leaseholder, the one above is a tenant with the council. Due to a fault in the piping under the kitchen sink, water intermittently leaks down onto the leaseholder below causing some water damage. Each time the tenant is made aware of the leak she calls her landlord, the council, to come and repair the leak, but after a while the leak starts again, unknown to the tenant. This happens regularly.
As a result of the water damage to her property, the leaseholder below decides to sue the tenant above.
Who is liable for the water damage? And why? Where possible please give sources for your answer.
2006-08-25 00:10:22 · 11 answers · asked by Chimera's Song 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The owner of the premises (the Council) owes a duty of care both to you as tenant and to the leaseholder of the premises below. Thus your neighbour should issue proceedings, not against you, since you have no interest in the property - you merely rent it for the time being, but the Council as owner of your property. Clearly the repairs that the Council have in the past made are inadequate and/or they have failed to use competent or qualified workmen.
There is a well known (known to the legal profession) on this very subject: the case is Rylands - Fletcher [1868] L.R.3 HL.
In the event that you receive a summons from your neighbour, then obviously you will need to consult a Solicitor to defend against your neighbour's action.
Want more help??? - email me: - geoff.chaplin@btinternet.com
2006-08-25 00:35:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The landlord of the upper flat, ie the council (assuming its a council owned flat). The maintanence of a property is the landlords responsibility. The tennant has alerted them to the problem and they have not fulfilled their duty to fix it. You're probably looking at a negligence or Rylands v Fletcher action. Most probably RvF. The rule in RvF protect people from damage that may occur due to the escape of a material that it is foreseeable will do damage on escape. the material has to be unnaturally occuring on that property ie the water is being pumped in from a location off the property so is therefore not naturally occuring, even though it is water. Should the landlord have known or have had reason to have known that escape was likely? Well, maybe not the first time, but after the first time they were informed about it, yes they should have been (that'll be fairly irrelevant in deciding damages, only in deciding if the landlord should have known about the escape) Thats basically it (with relevance to your situation anyway)
2006-08-27 08:30:19 · answer #2 · answered by Master Mevans 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the contract of the tenant, because sometimes the tenant is responsible for repairs to the property. If the tenant is not responsible for this the council will be responsible.
2006-08-25 00:17:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would imagine the council are liable. But they would try to tell you that's what your home insurance is for. I'd contact my insurers, explain the situation, and let them take it up with the upstairs person's insurers - who in turn will try to recover costs from the council. Long winded, but straightforward as there's no doubt about the cause or property at fault.
2006-08-25 00:15:03 · answer #4 · answered by K38 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry don't have sources but obviously it is the council who are liable. The tenant (in accordance with his tenancy agreement) will be responsible for such things as fixtures and fittings. He/She is also responsible for reporting any faults, once reported it's he councils problem to correct them or accept the consequences.
2006-08-26 16:00:52 · answer #5 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The leaseholder should definately sue the council, but could join the tenent in the action.
2006-08-28 08:41:24 · answer #6 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is council property upstairs so the council are responsible. It is their sink that caused it - inside their property. They have already admitted this by coming out to fix it. If they did a proper job then this situation would not have arisen.
2006-08-25 00:17:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the council being the landlord is liable for all repairs on the property and for damage caused to others.
most of this is down to poor grade workmanship typical of councils cutting corners and penny pinching,
2006-08-25 00:18:11 · answer #8 · answered by raz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Council, as landlord and titleholder of the property. I can't imagine anybody denying liability; and one of our rental flats was similarly persistently damaged by inadequately repaired leaks from above.
After repeated complaints it was fixed at their expense, and our flat repainted to the extent necessary too.
Res ipsa loquitur, sort of. ("Thing speaks for itself".)
2006-08-25 00:17:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. How is it negligent for Elizabeth to omit a analysis it somewhat is basically basically coming to mild in England? that would desire to be like suing for lacking an HIV analysis in 1983. in keeping with risk in 2003, yet no longer in 1983. Sheesh! She might have the skill to declare negligence from Brian, nevertheless.
2016-09-29 23:28:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋