PDA

View Full Version : Who pays the excess deducted from claim?



cuffley
21-05-2008, 15:15 PM
Hi

In the event of a claim on the buildings insurance (which is managed by the freeholder but paid for jointly by the leaseholders), who would pay any excess?

The claim would be for damage to the external building but primarily affecting the property of one of the leaseholders due to a leak from my flat (although this relates to a much wider problem as per another post!)

Thanks

jeffrey
21-05-2008, 16:56 PM
What does the lease wording say?

cuffley
30-05-2008, 15:54 PM
Thanks very much for your reply.

It doesn't seem to indicate this as it just states:

That the Lessor will at all times during the said term insure and keep insured the Building for the full reinstatement cost thereof against loss or damage by fire flood subsidence and landslip and such other risks reasonably required by the Lessor in an insurance office of repute and to make all payments necessary.....

Is there anything else I should be looking for?

Poppy
31-05-2008, 08:02 AM
(Without knowing what costs are reclaimable through the service charge) I am going to assume the excess laid out by the freeholder is reclaimable through the service charge.

Basically, are all of the freeholder's actual expenses/costs/charges reclaimable through the service charge?

jeffrey
01-06-2008, 18:09 PM
Thanks very much for your reply.

It doesn't seem to indicate this as it just states:

That the Lessor will at all times during the said term insure and keep insured the Building for the full reinstatement cost thereof against loss or damage by fire flood subsidence and landslip and such other risks reasonably required by the Lessor in an insurance office of repute and to make all payments necessary.....

Is there anything else I should be looking for?

Yes. That wording is a covenant by L. Is there a covenant by T to pay the insurance excess on a claim?

youngsm
15-07-2008, 16:04 PM
I own (leaseholder) a top floor flat and I noticed a damp patch on the ceiling. I traced this back to a leak in a roof vent which was fixed at no cost to myself. However the stain on the ceiling caused by the leak remains. I have obtained 2 quotes around about £275 to repair but have been told that the communal buildings insurance has an excess of £250 which I am expected to pay.

Is this correct? The freeholder takes out the buildings insurance.

jeffrey
15-07-2008, 16:37 PM
What does lease say about this aspect and the excess?

youngsm
16-07-2008, 10:27 AM
So it depends on my lease terms?

Haven't checked it but will do so tonight and let you know. Thanks.

ashburnham
18-07-2008, 08:42 AM
From an insurance point of view ONLY...

the excess should be paid by the policyholder(s). If the freeholder is the policyholder then it would be them, however the leaseholder names (you and downstairs) may have been put on the policy meaning you should all share the excess.

Common sense says that really you should pay the bill as it is damage to your property only as I'm sure you wouldn't want to pay out if something happened downstairs.

Regardless of everything I have just said though, as mentioned by Jeffrey, your lease agreement will always override everything and be the deciding factor.

pytliks
05-09-2008, 15:54 PM
hello, if tenant is on a full repair lease ie tenant is fully responsible, and there should be some effects from subsidence such as replacing ceiling sheets and plastering and repainting the ceiling and walls, is the tenant responsible to pay the excess of the insurance cover, usually say £1,000??
Also, is the landlord or tenant responsible for any time loss for sales, in say a showroom which might have to be closed to customers, for decorating?...

thanks, paul

ram
06-09-2008, 07:57 AM
is the tenant responsible to pay the excess of the insurance cover, usually say £1,000??
Also, is the landlord or tenant responsible for any time loss for sales, in say a showroom which might have to be closed to customers, for decorating?... thanks, paul

I have answered this assuming you are the Landlord ( but you could be the tenant ? )

1) You cannot expect a tenant to rebuild the interor or exterior if your house / Flat is falling down, however caused. Tenant expects safe and secure abode.

Repairs due to age, yes, but expect your tenant to leave if you start charging him for things not of his making, that he did not cause . He has a full repair lease, but not to rectify the ground on which it stands or subsequent damage caused by faulty ground.
This is none Legal advice, but i would be out immediately at the costs you are thinking of and implications in future.

2) showroom which might have to be closed to customers, for decorating?
Assume this may be a different property, but if in lease to redecorate, then tenant has to redecorate. Not your problem how he redecorates, or he has to shut for a while. You are renting them space, you don't own the business. How they make a profit and conform to the lease is their problem.

If it is in the lease that the property suffers from mild subsidence, and that the tenant will be obliged to keep property in good order, then tenant will have to fix. If not in lease, i think you are responsible, but those more learned than I, will advise you.

ashburnham
08-09-2008, 07:47 AM
The tenant should have their own insurance for "business interruption" and therefore any loss of sales should not be responsibility of the landlord.

The policyholder(s) will always be the payer of the excess. Normally this sort of policy will be in the landlord's name.

As usual, the lease agreement seems to have the final say and although the above two points are correct in principle, the lease agreement could override them as such but keep in mind I am only commenting from the insurance side of things and have little knowledge of lease agreements.

Moon235
18-03-2009, 12:30 PM
Does anyone know who should pay the excess on a buildings insurance claim?

We are a leasehold flat, all other flats are freehold.

The buildings insurance is provided by the managing agent and the policy is in the name of the freeholders.

jeffrey
18-03-2009, 12:41 PM
Are you sure that "all other flats are freehold"? Verify this via LR Online- seek copies of f/r registered title- before proceeding further.

Moon235
18-03-2009, 12:52 PM
Hi Jeffrey,
Yes all other flats are freehold and also 4 of the freeholders hold the freehold ot our property. There are only 6 flats in the block but they employ a managing agent to run the building.

If the other flats weren't freehold would this affect who pays the excess?

Poppy
18-03-2009, 13:07 PM
Read the lease. Perhaps this expense incurred by the freeholder could be reclaimed through the service charge.

Who made the insurance claim? Do they feel as though they should pay?

jeffrey
18-03-2009, 13:11 PM
Yes all other flats are freehold and also 4 of the freeholders hold the freehold ot our property.
Query- perhaps you mean that:
a. each other flat is individually owned leasehold; but
b. the leaseholders collectively also own the f/r?

Moon235
18-03-2009, 15:08 PM
We made the claim but are being told we are responsible for the excess but are not sure if this is correct.

The building is freehold and also all the flats are freehold except ours.

jeffrey
18-03-2009, 15:15 PM
The building is freehold and also all the flats are freehold except ours.
But I did ask...

Query- perhaps you mean that:
a. each other flat is individually owned leasehold; but
b. the leaseholders collectively also own the f/r?
If the flats really are individually freehold, as you assert, there are major problems. Why did your solicitor let you proceed with a purchase?

kikuyu
21-03-2009, 13:25 PM
I think the OP is somewhat confused.

Am I right in assuming the following:

1. There are 6 flats in the block?

2. The freehold reversion is owned by 4 of the lessees, the other 2 did not buy-in?

3. The freehold is owned by a nominee company?


If the above is correct, then look at the individual leases which should set out each lessee's contributions for services. insurance etc.

If each of the flats is liable for a 1/6th share then the excess should be shared amongt the 6 flat owners.

Why should you expect the 4 other lessees/freeholders to pay for this and not demand the same from the other 2 leaseholder? It does not make any difference whether they (the 4 others) are also the f/h in addition to being l/h

Buy2Let
23-04-2009, 21:19 PM
hi there,

I own a rented flat on the top floor which had a water leakage causing water damage to the flat below.

She is claiming building insurance for this but requires an excess of 250pounds. However the housing association feels they can get their contractors in and do the job for less and wants me to split the cost of the repairs with them.

Is this fair and can they enforce it? I think its not fair as I had a leaky roof last year resulting in damage to my furnishing and nobody offered anything.

thanks

Poppy
23-04-2009, 21:51 PM
If you had the ability to make a claim and didn't, that's your choice.

The excess can be handled in one of two ways: The freeholder can reclaim it through the service charge and all lessees pay. Or the source of the problem, you, can pay.

Is the housing association the freeholder? If so, it is interesting to learn that they are trying to reduce the cost of repairs. As the source of the problem, does this seem acceptable to you? Consider that if a claim is made the premiums may rise for a few years into the future and all lessees will pay.

Several things for you to consider.

frobabili
18-06-2009, 14:03 PM
Hi
I wonder if anyone can help?
Background: We own the lease of a first floor apartment which is a relitively new (4 years max) conversion - the original building was an old victorian alylum, which was converted into many luxury apartments.
The apartment came with the standard 10 year NHBC warenty, and we pay our maintainence charge which includes the block buildings insurance.
When we purchased the apartment about 2 years ago, we purchased from the guy who purchased it fresh on release from the developer/freeholder. At the time the buildings insurance was beleiveed to be £250.
The Issue: Last week our downstairs neighbour informed us water was again leaking through his ceiling (he told us it had happend on a lesser scale a couple of months ago but stopped & he didnt inform us at that point) into his mezanine dining room, and doing damage to his ceiling, walls, carpet & now is starting to leak through into his lower ground floor kitchen below. Our Kitchen is the room directly above his dining room.
Investigations showed that under our kitchen cupboards only relitively minor water seapage, not to a level to be causing the damage to downstairs & no other obvious leak.
Having called in many tradesmen, including our own plumber, the caretaker, & now the managing agents plumber, its been decided its coming from a pipe within our kitchen somewhere likely either in our plasterboard walls, or under the flooring.
When digging into the issue of liability & Insurance excess, we are told by our managing agent that the freeholder has just procured some new buildings insurance & due to the high number of plumbing related claims they have increased the excess from £250 to £2500.
The Question: Can They do that without due consultation with the leasehodlers (we would have been more happy to increase the maintainence payments if given the option), and do we have any recourse against anyone for the costs of the excess... the likelyhood is the pipework thats leaking is within our apartments boundaries, but we understand the build quality below the surface is poor across the development & feel we should not have to be paying or even considering having to pay such an excessive excess.

Any help/advice much appreciated.

Thanks.

ashburnham
23-06-2009, 09:58 AM
I can't speak for any of the issues with regards to how the freeholder or managing agent are handling things as this is to do with your lease agreement among other things.

What I would say is that it is not uncommon for an insurance company to impose terms on a policy where there appears to be an excessive amount of claims for the same thing. If particularly bad then a certain type of claim may be excluded or a high excess applied which appears to be the case here.

If your freeholder / managing agent hasn't shopped around (which is usually the case) then they are merely passing these new terms on to you. Maybe encourage them to seek alternative insurance cover that doesn't have this high excess. It is likely it would cost more but you have already said that a higher maintenance charge would be acceptable.

I know this doesn't help answer your query as such but my knowledge is limited to how the insurance side of things work. Hopefully some others on here can give you some more help.

Poppy
25-06-2009, 13:11 PM
I'm guessing that your freeholder owns other properties and has probably claimed more than once for plumbing-related incidents.

Depending on the cost, perhaps you could encourage your freeholder to repair the leak and not claim on the insurance at all. He would then reclaim the cost from the lessees according to the lease.

This is an unhappy situation.

Unfortunately, it'll take several years for your freeholder's insurance record to recover. And that'll only happen if no further similar claims are made.

Once this situation is resolved, I wonder if a possible way forward is for the lessees to exercise their right to manage.

liane
29-07-2009, 16:12 PM
I hope someone can help me with this question.

My mum is a leaseholder of a groundfloor flat. She's a pensioner. The sewer pipe serving both upstairs and her flat has sunk and requires fairly significant repairs. The freeholder is seeking to make a claim from the buildings insurance and has stated that my mum and the leaseholder of the other flat are liable to pay the £1000 excess between them.

We have checked my mum's lease and that mentions is that my mum is required to make a contributions towards the buildings insurance, which she does.

The buildings insurance is not in my mum's name but in the freeholder's name as I guess one would expect.

Can it be right that my mum and the other leaseholder have to pay the £1000 between them? At the very least should the cost not be split 30/30/30 between the freeholder and both leaseholders?

Please if anyone has any information let me know. My mum is a pensioner and £500 will probably put her in debt.

Liane

sgclacy
29-07-2009, 23:56 PM
The buildings insurance excess is really part of the premium. If you paid a high enough premium you could have a zero excess and iif you had a very large excess the premium would fall.

Therefore the insurance excess should be part of the service charges and shared in the same ratio as the premium

This is in line with what the RICS Code of Management Practice suggests.

ashburnham
30-07-2009, 10:15 AM
These things are decided by the lease agreement but if this says you must make a contribution towards the buildings insurance then this is a bit vague.

Does it mean contribution to just the insurance premium or does it mean the insurance policy as a whole (i.e. excesses on claims)?

The excess is very rarely split between freeholder and leaseholders so it is likely to be either a 50/50 between your mum and the other leaseholder or would be entirely the freeholder's problem.

Sorry this doesn't answer your question but just so you know to focus your investigations based on the lease agreement. I'm sure someone with better lease agreement knowledge on here will help soon enough...

liane
30-07-2009, 17:18 PM
Thank you for both replies.

My mum is sending me a copy of her lease in the post so when I get it, I will double check the section she read to me in relation to the buildings insurance and then revert back to you if that's okay? She seems certain there is no specific mention of excess but when she bought the flat her solicitor commented that it was a difficult document to make sense out of, so to laymen like me and my mum it could be hidden amongst some vague wording.

Once again thanks.

Liane

liane
17-08-2009, 15:02 PM
Hello. I've finally got a copy of the lease.

From what I can make out the relevant sections in the covenants are:

The tenant covenants to the landlord to ... "3(2) contribute and pay one half part of the costs expenses outgoings and matters mentioned in the Third Schedule" and "6 ... to pay and contribute to the landlord one half part of the costs and expenses arising from the works and other matters referred to in the Third Schedule ..."

The landlord covenants with the tenant to ... " 4(2) ... insure the building against loss or damage by fire aircraft explosion storm or ... act of war or accident or by any other peril ... and will if the building is damaged or destroyed by any of the insured risks as soon as reasonably practicable lay out the insurance monies ... in the repair rebuilding or reinstatement of the same"

The relevant section in the Third Schedule:

"4. the cost of insurance mentioned in sub-clause (2) of Clause 4 [see above] and of insurance against third party risk in respect of the building"

The others sections in the Third Schedule appear to relate to matters which would be cover by maintenance charges "the expenses of maintaining repairing redecorating and renewing ...", "the costs of redecorating the exterior ..." and matters relating to taxes.

Do the terms of the lease appear to mean my mum is liable to pay half of the buildings excess of £1000? Section 3(2) seems to point to that.

Many thanks for your help.

Liane

jeffrey
17-08-2009, 15:07 PM
Do the terms of the lease appear to mean my mum is liable to pay half of the buildings excess of £1000?
Yes. L is entitled to recharge, to T1 and T2 (50% each) all of the service charge provision costs. These include:
a. not only the insurance premium; but also
b. the irrecoverable insurance excess.
Exception: claim arising from act/omission of one lessee (who would then probably be made solely liable, by another covenant in the leases).

jeffrey
17-08-2009, 15:43 PM
Can it be right that my mum and the other leaseholder have to pay the £1000 between them? At the very least should the cost not be split 30/30/30 between the freeholder and both leaseholders?
That '30-30-30' concept baffles me, quite apart from the bits adding-up to only 90%! From where did you think that L has to contribute?

liane
17-08-2009, 16:45 PM
It would have been far more sensible to have said a third each or a 3 way split, not sure why I put 30/30/30!

I think it was just a naive and hopeful assumption that the landlord would be liable as well as the tenants, and not having sight of the lease at the time I originally posted didn't help.

Thankfully we checked the lease and got some help from yourselves before contacting the landlord.

Thanks again for your help.

Liane

hollyhead
06-02-2011, 22:34 PM
Hi,
who pays the excess on the insurance policy when a claim is made? Landlord or Lessee? If it is the Lessee, is it made only by the flat who is claiming ? Or is it charged to the service charge account?

jeffrey
07-02-2011, 11:53 AM
The first answer should always be 'Read your lease. What does it say on the subject?'

hollyhead
07-02-2011, 15:53 PM
thank you Jeffrey
Lessee: to pay the lessor a % of the annual cost of carrying out or providing for such maintenance repairs and services on the estate and other matters in the seventh shedule.
Lessor: to insure the estate with an insurance office of repute in an amount equal to the full value thereof against loss or damage by fire aircraft lightening storm etc..and such other comprehensive risks as will cover contingent liability to any third party for nuisance negligence breach of statutory duty neglect or default on the part of any lessee owner etc... or arising out of the occupation or control of any part of the premises and to produce to the lessee on demand the policy of insurance and the receipt for the last premium paid in repect thereof
If and so far as the same shall be so assessed to pay all exsisting and future taxes rates assessments and outgoings now or hereafter imposed upon or payable in respect of such parts of the estate as are not included in the flats as described in the leases thereof ( what does this last paragraph actually mean?)
Generally to maintain and superintend the estate for the mutual benifit convenience and comfort of the lessee

jeffrey
07-02-2011, 17:00 PM
So no clause obliging lessee to pay any excess.

hollyhead
07-02-2011, 17:17 PM
No! not that I can see.
but there is this; Lessee
to pay all the rates taxes assessments charges impositions and outgoings which may at any time during the said term be assessed charged or imposed upon the premises or the owner or occupier in respect thereof
Who pays the excess Jeffrey?

jeffrey
08-02-2011, 13:06 PM
No! not that I can see.
but there is this; Lessee
to pay all the rates taxes assessments charges impositions and outgoings which may at any time during the said term be assessed charged or imposed upon the premises or the owner or occupier in respect thereof
Who pays the excess Jeffrey?
I'd read that clause as meaning lawful third-party-payment demands, not making-up an insurance excess.

leaseholdanswers
08-02-2011, 13:24 PM
Hi,
who pays the excess on the insurance policy when a claim is made? Landlord or Lessee? If it is the Lessee, is it made only by the flat who is claiming ? Or is it charged to the service charge account?

As insurance is virtually impoosible to get without an excess, it is a cost of insuring, and as long as insurance is a service charge recoverable item, the excess is part of that cost.

That said if you can show that the loss occured as a result of someone's act omission or negligence ( I went to the shop and left the bath filling) then the excess can be recharged to the individual. There is therefore a degree of discretion which the lease does not govern (it is a mix of contract, equity and a smidgeon of torts!).

Sandys
06-05-2011, 01:39 AM
Hi all,

I own a ground floor masionette (freehold) and lease out first floor to, let's say, Mr A. Both of us let the flats out. I buy the Landlord building insurance and we spilt the cost between us every year.

The tenant upstairs went on holiday for 10 days and their tap/pipe/sink in the kitchen "mysteriously" leaked (of course he didn't tell me the reason why). It made the wall of my flat seriously damp and crack.

The water was stopped in the next day (I guess Mr A's letting agent sent a plumber over) but we need to go through the insurance claim.

When I demand Mr A for excess he refuses to pay as he believes the damage was not caused by neglect and therefore he should not be solely responsible for the excess.

Does that mean I have to pay half or full of the excess as it's not my tenant's fault? We are due to extend his lease, can I amend the clauses so that we will buy separate building insurance in the future?

Any comments are greatly appreciated.

JK0
06-05-2011, 07:30 AM
With your present problem, you could just sue him for the cost of repairs, he would have to claim on the insurance, and then he would have been paid out the total less the excess. However, this will still put up your own insurance cost next year.

I think separate policies sounds like a good idea.

jeffrey
06-05-2011, 13:46 PM
I think separate policies sounds like a good idea.
If you mean 'property insurance', NO- definitely not!
There should always be one, single, solitary policy for the whole building.
But contents cover can be per-flat.

Sandys
06-05-2011, 16:11 PM
Thank you guys for your speedy replies!

Mr. A simply ignores my email so I guess I need to go through the claim and pay the excess myself :( It works out cheaper than suing him I suppose

leaseholdanswers
07-05-2011, 08:43 AM
Thank you guys for your speedy replies!

Mr. A simply ignores my email so I guess I need to go through the claim and pay the excess myself :( It works out cheaper than suing him I suppose

Well no; the excess is a commercial fact ( you cannot the policy without one) and in the first instance is a service charge cost.

It can be recharged to an individual if you can prove fault, which is a precondition for negligence. Despite your understandable suspicion, until you can convert that to fact with proof, you have to put it in a service charge cost. With your leases, if there is no common service charge, then you may have to pay it yourself.

Sandys
09-05-2011, 09:16 AM
Yes you're so right - Mr. A said he wouldn't pay a penny out because he's told that there's no damages caused to his flat! :mad:

Can I ask the repairer to write me a report to state my flat is damaged by the water upstairs which will be used for suing him?

Sad S
09-05-2011, 16:38 PM
If the water leak was an accident, not the result of someone's deliberate action or inaction, that's what YOU are insured for.

This sort of thing is probably more likely to happen to a downstairs flat, and is quite possibly factored into the premium calculation.

How much is the excess? What is the total cost of the claim?

Moderator1
09-05-2011, 16:44 PM
Several largely similar questions on separate threads have been merged into this thread (hence the repetitive nature of answers).

Sandys
09-05-2011, 22:48 PM
I just ring and make a claim today, the excess is only £200 but they're going to put it up to £1000 next month - phew!

They'll send someone out to investigate and reinstate the problem so I'm not sure how much it'll cost in total. We're also due to renew our building insurance but because of this claim, I think they will re-calculate the premium and will go up dramatically........

leaseholdanswers
10-05-2011, 09:29 AM
Yes you're so right - Mr. A said he wouldn't pay a penny out because he's told that there's no damages caused to his flat! :mad:

Can I ask the repairer to write me a report to state my flat is damaged by the water upstairs which will be used for suing him?

That your flat is damaged is without question. Why is what is at issue.

A tap may have been left on, but unless you can prove that there was fault, which requires proof or admission, that they left for a few days and did not have check round the flat, or did work, shut off the water and did not check on completion.

The burden is on you to prove that, not for Mr A to answer your suspicions.

Mrs Dingle
10-05-2011, 14:09 PM
I have a block of flats and have a current water escape problem from one of the upstairs flats.

All leaseholders pay into a block insurance. £100 excess.

I take the view that the excess should be payed by the leaseholder of the flat which contains the source of the problem.

Irregardless of whether the leaseholder is directly to blame.
The blame may lay with the plumber.
The blame may lay with faulty goods.
Either way I think the leaseholder is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the flat which also should mean contributing to the cost of repairing the damage caused to another a flat.
It can't be fair to keep charging excesses to leaseholders whose flats don't cause any claims.


This only my opinion but its what I practice.

jeffrey
10-05-2011, 14:23 PM
I agree, although I'd be fortified if each lease said so expressly.
If the leaseholder concerned is not personally at fault, maybe he/she can dump the excess on:
a. a contractor who is at fault; or
b. the supplier of faulty goods.

leaseholdanswers
10-05-2011, 16:14 PM
I have a block of flats and have a current water escape problem from one of the upstairs flats.

All leaseholders pay into a block insurance. £100 excess.

I take the view that the excess should be payed by the leaseholder of the flat which contains the source of the problem.

Irregardless of whether the leaseholder is directly to blame.
The blame may lay with the plumber.
The blame may lay with faulty goods.
Either way I think the leaseholder is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the flat which also should mean contributing to the cost of repairing the damage caused to another a flat.
It can't be fair to keep charging excesses to leaseholders whose flats don't cause any claims.


This only my opinion but its what I practice.

Well I am sorry to say that it has a poor foundation.

IN the first instance the leaseholder is responsible for the repair and activities in the flat.

However the law does not support that he is therefore responsible for every consequence.

Similarity the lease that he has entered into might expressly require others to insure and therefore reduce his liability, or contribute to the responsibility for it.

The lease will more than likely require the person in control landlord head lessor Man CO etc. to insure, and one of the provisions is normally that a peril such as escape for fixed water installations, that is covered by that insurance. As the excess is a commercial term of business, then those costs are part of the cost of insuring under the service charge.

Then where the law of the lease makes no provision for consequences, the excess is part of the cost of insuring. If however the individual can be proven to be at fault, unless the lease requires it, while he should , equitably, pay the excess, he might not be required to.

Mrs Dingle
10-05-2011, 17:43 PM
Our leases say that the lessee will at the lessees expense make good any damage or loss caused to the premises or any other maisonette in or part of the property by reason of any bursting overflowing or stopping up of any water apparatus.
In this case it was from under the bath.

So 2 quotes have been sought for the damage to the ground floor flat and sent to the lessee above.
The lessee can now decide whether to pay for the repairs or claim.
All long leaseholders are noted on the insurance policy by name because they have contributed to it.
The Insurance company in turn allow the leaseholders to claim direct.
Claiming for damages is not always the only option when an accident has occured.
So the leaseholder has a choice.

Yes the excess could be taken out of the service charge pot but that is equally owned and shared by each leaseholder so the same as charging everyone.

Very few insurance claims are the result of something other than faulty equipment ,bad workmanship or poor maintenance.

I welcome any better way but I am really trying to be fair.

This is the second bad downpour into this bathroom. I did not bill the tenant above last time due to the fact that the ceiling was in a bad condition. I have replaced the ceiling and all electrics since and I think that I should not be contributing to the cost or taking money from other leaseholders via the service charge pot for a second waterleak from the same place..

Mrs Dingle
10-05-2011, 23:36 PM
Due to all the posts and discussions about this. There must be a malfunction somewhere in the writing of leases. All problems go back to the lease. Maybe the lease writers have something to say.

leaseholdanswers
11-05-2011, 06:37 AM
As a lease writer, this actually helps. The lease has addressed the most common issue, leaks,putting a contractual liability on the leaseholder.

Irrespective of fault accident or "stuff happens", the entire cost is the liability of the leaseholder, and therefore the balance of the claim after insurance payout is theirs to pay.

In this case no matter how many claims are made for similar instances it is always going to be the owners individual liability.

As a general rule however it is right that everyone is charged as it is part of the service cost for insurance in that there is an excess which the insured has to meet.
In the absence of a contractual clause, the facts and circumstances can allow an insurer to recover, or insist that the leaseholder pay the excess themselves.

The decision turns often on simple common sense. In one case, while it was accidental, a couple had lit several candles to set the mood, and afterward went to sleep. The resulting fire could have been avoided by simple precautions....along with others that they may have taken :D

jeffrey
13-05-2011, 12:15 PM
In one case, while it was accidental, a couple had lit several candles to set the mood, and afterward went to sleep. The resulting fire could have been avoided by simple precautions.
Never mind just 'excess'; maybe their claim would wholly fail, since they inadvertently caused the fire.