Leak in Apartment Block - Who is responsible

sbsquarepants

Leak in Apartment Block

Hi Folks,

I've had an unfortunate chain of events which has led to flooding my apartment, which will have a fairly hefty price tag to repair. To rub salt in the wound, my insurance have just informed me they don't cover it! This is what has happened. Sorry if it's a bit long winded.

1. Irish water turned off water to estate for maintenance.
2. Upstairs neighbour came home to no water and rang a plumber.
3. Plumber came out, found 3 mains valves closed on street outside, assumed this was the problem, opened them - nothing happened as water was off, so he left.
4. Irish water turned back on the water to the estate.
5. At this point it transpires that the 3 closed valves are in fact connected to 3 uncapped mains inlets - 2 are hidden behind a box in my bathroom the other is under the floor somewhere just outside my apartment.
6. SDCC, Irish water + Management company all refused to come out and close the valves - eventually we managed to get the plumber who had opened them to come back but at this stage the water had been flowing for about 2 hours.


Basically it got into 6 rooms, 3 of which had laminate floors, the other 3 where tiled. The 3 laminates + insulation under them are destroyed and will need to come up, fitted wardrobes sitting on top of the floors will likely be damaged when removing the floors. Various bits and pieces lying on the floor where also damaged but considering the amount of water we got away lightly due to beds, sofas being on legs so they avoided the worst.

I estimate that buying the materials and doing the work my self would cost around €2500 - €3000.

After a bit of arguing they management company have agreed to proceed a claim on the block insurance seeing as it was shoddy plumbing rather that wear or tear or anything like that - the catch is the excess is €2,500 - so I'm no better off (bar not having to do the work)

The builder, the plumber, the management company and the council (who I bought the apartment off) have all washed their hands of it.
It seems just plain wrong that I should be left €2,500 out of pocket for something like this. I wasn't involved at any stage (bar the clean up!) - somebody must be to blame.

Any advice?

punisher5112

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hi Folks,

I've had an unfortunate chain of events which has led to flooding my apartment, which will have a fairly hefty price tag to repair. To rub salt in the wound, my insurance have just informed me they don't cover it! This is what has happened. Sorry if it's a big long winded.

1. Irish water turned off water to estate for maintenance.
2. Upstairs neighbour came home to no water and rang a plumber.
3. Plumber came out, found 3 mains valves closed on street outside, assumed this was the problem, opened them - nothing happened as water was off, so he left.
4. Irish water turned back on the water to the estate.
5. At this point it transpires that the 3 closed valves are in fact connected to 3 uncapped mains inlets - 2 are hidden behind a box in my bathroom the other is under the floor somewhere just outside my apartment.
6. SDCC, Irish water + Management company all refused to come out and close the valves - eventually we managed to get the plumber who had opened them to come back but at this stage the water had been flowing for about 2 hours.


Basically it got into 6 rooms, 3 of which had laminate floors, the other 3 where tiled. The 3 laminates + insulation under them are destroyed and will need to come up, fitted wardrobes sitting on top of the floors will likely be damaged when removing the floors. Various bits and pieces lying on the floor where also damaged but considering the amount of water we got away lightly due to beds, sofas being on legs so they avoided the worst.

I estimate that buying the materials and doing the work my self would cost around €2500 - €3000.

After a bit of arguing they management company have agreed to proceed a claim on the block insurance seeing as it was shoddy plumbing rather that wear or tear or anything like that - the catch is the excess is €2,500 - so I'm no better off (bar not having to do the work)

The builder, the plumber, the management company and the council (who I bought the apartment off) have all washed their hands of it.
It seems just plain wrong that I should be left €2,500 out of pocket for something like this. I wasn't involved at any stage (bar the clean up!) - somebody must be to blame.

Any advice?

Claim off plumber insurance. You may well need the services of a solicitor to get anywhere.

.......

This post has been deleted.

I love Sean nos

I'd be starting with the plumber. Then I'd be chasing to get those mains inlets capped.

john kinsella

You should proceed with a claim under the block policy.

The block insurer will then chase the plumber for a recovery and included in the recovery would be your uninsured losses i.e. the policy excess which would be paid back to you.

The recovery action would likely take a few months but there is every chance it would be successful going by what you have said above. The plumber was negligent.

Other than doing the above you could appoint a solicitor and send a letter directly to the plumber asking for his insurance details and claim directly off him. This would be the harder option though and could be costly appointing a solicitor.

sbsquarepants

Thanks folks - just another example of the cesspit of celtic tiger self certification!

Peregrinus

It't not clear whether the shoddy plumbing was (a) the installation of the uncapped outlets, or (b) opening the valves to the uncapped outlets, and leaving them open, or (c) both.

Looks to me that you're set up for an argument between the insurers of the two plumbers concerned. Sue them both.

nuac

Mod
Amended title for clarity
Leaving open for general discussion subject to rule re legal advice
Assuming this is an apartment block, consider your lease and management company agreement Agreement with management agent, Certifications and confirmations on file.
Your solicitor may have these, or they may be lodged with your lending institution[/B][/B]

sbsquarepants

Another quick question -

I bought the place around 13 years ago - obviously the problem has been there since then, but only came to light when the valves where turned on last week. Is there some sort of time frame where the builder ceases to be liable for anything like that?

I doubt I'd have had much difficulty pursuing the builder if this had of happened on day 13 or week 13 - year 13 I'm not so sure about, although it's not like it was going to rectify itself or become less shoddy no matter how much time had elapsed.

I'm thinking the plumber could always just deny involvement - it wasn't me your honour, someone else must have done it coincidentally on the same day, or something like that. The builder can hardly claim he didn't build it!

Marcusm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Another quick question -

I bought the place around 13 years ago - obviously the problem has been there since then, but only came to light when the valves where turned on last week. Is there some sort of time frame where the builder ceases to be liable for anything like that?

I doubt I'd have had much difficulty pursuing the builder if this had of happened on day 13 or week 13 - year 13 I'm not so sure about, although it's not like it was going to rectify itself or become less shoddy no matter how much time had elapsed.

I'm thinking the plumber could always just deny involvement - it wasn't me your honour, someone else must have done it coincidentally on the same day, or something like that. The builder can hardly claim he didn't build it!

What reason has your own insurer denied responsibilities pity? It sounds as if 2/3 of the leaks arose within your own demise. If you have water ingress cover, what else would it include? As respects the leak from the common areas, I would have though the OMC should have some legal ability as it should have been discovered on a periodic inspection over the years. There's no real reason for a water mains outlet not to be capped. If the premises has not been inspected in 14 years, perhaps the fault lies at the hands of the managing agent rather than OMC. The managing agent's contract with OMC should not have a carve out for their negligence. I doubt that you have any claim against the builder given the effluxion of time. The plumber who opened the mains might gut also have a case to answer if the fault runs directly from his actions.

Victor

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe they did. Maybe they could only text people who had registered with them. Maybe it was an emergency repair.

Marcusm wrote: »

If the premises has not been inspected in 14 years, perhaps the fault lies at the hands of the managing agent rather than OMC.

I can't see the managing agent or the OMC having direct responsibility seeing as:

2 are hidden behind a box in my bathroom the other is under the floor somewhere just outside my apartment.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I bought the place around 13 years ago - obviously the problem has been there since then, but only came to light when the valves where turned on last week. Is there some sort of time frame where the builder ceases to be liable for anything like that?

Typically 6-12 years.

sbsquarepants

Marcusm wrote: »

What reason has your own insurer denied responsibilities pity? .

This one stems from my own stupidity I'm afraid - simply not bothering to read the small print.

As it's an apartment my buildings cover is part of the management fees, so I only have private contents cover. I only scanned through the terms, seen "carpets, rugs etc." were covered, but if I had of read it properly, I would have seen there was specific exclusion for laminate floors.

I've been on to the plumber and he's basically trying to weasel out of it, I can tell by his tone he knows it's his fault he just doesn't want to pay for it - he's stance is basically, it wasn't me, someone else must have done it after I left - can you prove they didn't.

They've been there untouched for 13 years and then all of a sudden 2 seperate clowns open them them in the space of half an hour, the second of which forgot to close them, yea sounds legit! He's really pissed me off I have to say.

amcalester

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This one stems from my own stupidity I'm afraid - simply not bothering to read the small print.

As it's an apartment my buildings cover is part of the management fees, so I only have private contents cover. I only scanned through the terms, seen "carpets, rugs etc." were covered, but if I had of read it properly, I would have seen there was specific exclusion for laminate floors.

I've been on to the plumber and he's basically trying to weasel out of it, I can tell by his tone he knows it's his fault he just doesn't want to pay for it - he's stance is basically, it wasn't me, someone else must have done it after I left - can you prove they didn't.

They've been there untouched for 13 years and then all of a sudden 2 seperate clowns open them them in the space of half an hour, the second of which forgot to close them, yea sounds legit! He's really pissed me off I have to say.

The burden of proof in civil cases is lower than criminal cases, any decision would be made on what likely happened, not what you can prove happened.

So once it was established that the plumber opened the valves then I would think it likely that he would be found to be liable.

.......

This post has been deleted.

dont bother

something very similar happened to me - it was a leak from the apartment upstairs which the absolutely stupid tenant had left running out of her sink for a WHOLE DAY. it destroyed my whole apartment and they wouldnt do a tap.

it's still ongoing and it's just over a year ago now that it happened.
i had to fork out for the repair works myself as the landlord of the property above wouldn't budge. i am in the process of bringing them to court over this.

also the management company didnt do ANYTHING. the same thing happened - management companies in this country have it RIGGED. it's a total scam.

basically, thats the exact same Excess that they had for mine - and it's the ONLY thing the excess is high on - water damage - because they know this is the only thing they would have to pay out for.

it's sick. i am now trying to sell my apartment

Mod's deletion. Possible defamation. Pls don't post such accusations here

sbsquarepants

I think a solicitor is my only real option at this stage. Any idea on what kind of time frame is involved for something like this - are we talking months? Years?

If this was a straight forward claim the insurance job, I'd just get someone in to do all the work, expense be damned....but, whereas there's not really a good time for your house to be flooded, this couldn't have come at a worse time. I'm moving in 3 or 4 weeks and I need the place rentable by then or else I'm paying 2 mortgages, with the expense of moving I just don't have the money to put it back into the condition it was in right now. I can do the work myself but i'll have to cut corners, use cheaper materials and so on - ideally I'd like it put back the way it was before hand, and given his attitude I'd also want to be paid for my time, there could be 4 or 5 days work in it all things considered - I'd probably have to use a weeks holidays to cover it.

Assuming the case was successful, would I be able to argue my case like that or would it just be a case of produce receipts for materials, labour etc. and get reimbursed for those. Leaving me with a slightly crappier house and a weeks less holidays for all my hassle!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Leaving aside who is responsible for the moment, I don't think the onus is solely on you to have the repairs done. Is it not on the Mgt. Co. to effect structural repairs, whether or not there is an insurance policy in place?

jamesthepeach

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Leaving aside who is responsible for the moment, I don't think the onus is solely on you to have the repairs done. Is it not on the Mgt. Co. to effect structural repairs, whether or not there is an insurance policy in place?

I had a leak that destroyed an apartment.
Got the same.guff from the management company and then got a solicitor on to it and it was sorted at no loss to myself. After that I made damned sure to get myself into the management committee as they were a shower of cowboys.

sbsquarepants

The only structural aspect is capping the valves - which they tell me is in motion. If it's not done in a week or so, i'll just fill them in with concrete myself - I'm not waiting around for this to happen again.

Sue Pa Key Pa

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The only structural aspect is capping the valves - which they tell me is in motion. If it's not done in a week or so, i'll just fill them in with concrete myself - I'm not waiting around for this to happen again.

You mentioned €2,500 to €3,000 worth of damage to the property?

Victor

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They've been there untouched for 13 years and then all of a sudden 2 seperate clowns open them them in the space of half an hour

Was there two plumbers? Allocating blame may be an issue.

.......

This post has been deleted.

bobbyss

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Leak in Apartment Block

Hi Folks,

I've had an unfortunate chain of events which has led to flooding my apartment, which will have a fairly hefty price tag to repair. To rub salt in the wound, my insurance have just informed me they don't cover it! This is what has happened. Sorry if it's a bit long winded.

1. Irish water turned off water to estate for maintenance.
2. Upstairs neighbour came home to no water and rang a plumber.
3. Plumber came out, found 3 mains valves closed on street outside, assumed this was the problem, opened them - nothing happened as water was off, so he left.
4. Irish water turned back on the water to the estate.
5. At this point it transpires that the 3 closed valves are in fact connected to 3 uncapped mains inlets - 2 are hidden behind a box in my bathroom the other is under the floor somewhere just outside my apartment.
6. SDCC, Irish water + Management company all refused to come out and close the valves - eventually we managed to get the plumber who had opened them to come back but at this stage the water had been flowing for about 2 hours.


Basically it got into 6 rooms, 3 of which had laminate floors, the other 3 where tiled. The 3 laminates + insulation under them are destroyed and will need to come up, fitted wardrobes sitting on top of the floors will likely be damaged when removing the floors. Various bits and pieces lying on the floor where also damaged but considering the amount of water we got away lightly due to beds, sofas being on legs so they avoided the worst.

I estimate that buying the materials and doing the work my self would cost around €2500 - €3000.

After a bit of arguing they management company have agreed to proceed a claim on the block insurance seeing as it was shoddy plumbing rather that wear or tear or anything like that - the catch is the excess is €2,500 - so I'm no better off (bar not having to do the work)

The builder, the plumber, the management company and the council (who I bought the apartment off) have all washed their hands of it.
It seems just plain wrong that I should be left €2,500 out of pocket for something like this. I wasn't involved at any stage (bar the clean up!) - somebody must be to blame.

Any advice?

Did Irish Water give notice to all occupants/owners of intention to turn off water? Did neighbour get notice of this?

sbsquarepants

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You mentioned €2,500 to €3,000 worth of damage to the property?

To floors / underlay mostly, a couple of bedside lockers and stuff like that. Plus possible damage that will occur to walls and fitted wardrobes when I have to remove them + skirting boards to get the floors up.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He admits opening them (on the phone anyway) but claims he closed them before leaving, someone else must have opened them again in the 20 minutes between him leaving and the water coming back on!

bobbyss wrote: »

Did Irish Water give notice to all occupants/owners of intention to turn off water? Did neighbour get notice of this?

No notice. Apparently they just put it on their website these days.

.......

This post has been deleted.

bobbyss

sbsquarepants wrote:

No notice. Apparently they just put it on their website these days.

I don't think that's good enough of IW. Not everyone is on line. Seems to start with a breakdown in communication and IW initiated this. Legally surely a posted letter to owner/ occupier would be required?

Lantus

sbsquarepants wrote:

I've been on to the plumber and he's basically trying to weasel out of it, I can tell by his tone he knows it's his fault he just doesn't want to pay for it - he's stance is basically, it wasn't me, someone else must have done it after I left - can you prove they didn't.

The block insurance is a no go as the excess is 2500. Personally I think that this is too low as an excess but that's an aside.

The simplest solution is to cap the pipes to ensure it doesn't happen again and then do the work yourself.

Your next option is to pursue the plumber who it could be argued was negligent in opening the valves without due diligence as to what they affected. I would consult a solicitor on this as what you need to do is claim on his insurance as quickly as possible.

Anything else will be a waste of money as although 3k is a lot of money it's still a low enough amount to go fully legal.

The final thing is to review your insurance to ensure you get better cover.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Was there two plumbers? Allocating blame may be an issue.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In another sense, there were two plumbers. There was the plumber who turned up, opened the valves and (we're pretty sure) left them open. And there was the plumber who, much earlier, installed the outlets and left them uncapped.

The plumber who presumably left the valves open could argue that, even if he did leave the valves open, that shouldn't have cause the flooding. If the plumbing installed in the block were up to scratch, leaving the valves open would not have been a problem. How could he possibly be expected to know that there were uncapped outlets in the block? The flood was therefore caused by the negligence of the person who installed the outlets and left them uncapped. There was always going to be a flood as soon as those valves were opened.

The validity of this argument depends on whether installing uncapped outlets is indeed negligent, a breach of code, a breach of the normal standards of a competent plumber, etc. FWIW, I have no clue as to whether it is or not, but there's a good chance that plumber no. 2 will argue that it is, and that he is not responsible for the consequences of the negligence of plumber no. 1.

sbsquarepants

Lantus wrote: »

The final thing is to review your insurance to ensure you get better cover.

To be honest this is the lesson I'm going to take away from this, I think I'm almost certainly going to be the one who ends up footing the bill.
But sure who knows maybe it will save me a few quid somewhere down the road. (I'm trying to put some positive spin on this in my mind:D)

My own take on it is also that it's the (recent) plumbers fault, he should have left the valves the way he found them, especially as he couldn't ascertain what they actually done - he took an educated guess (I can sympathise, it's clear why he would have thought that way) but it was still ultimately a guess and it turned out to be wrong.

The builders plumber also done a very below par job, but good luck getting money off him after 13 years.

I think there's a very real risk of throwing good money after bad here. I really don't want to let the plumber off the hook given his attitude, but my main concern is getting out of this as cheaply as I possible, a pyrrhic victory is no victory at all!

Note to self - read the god damn small print in future!

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

In another sense, there were two plumbers. There was the plumber who turned up, opened the valves and (we're pretty sure) left them open. And there was the plumber who, much earlier, installed the outlets and left them uncapped.

It will be difficult to identify the original plumber and harder to pursue them.

The plumber who presumably left the valves open could argue that, even if he did leave the valves open, that shouldn't have cause the flooding. If the plumbing installed in the block were up to scratch, leaving the valves open would not have been a problem.

Not necessarily.

How could he possibly be expected to know that there were uncapped outlets in the block?

It is probably something that a competent plumber should be aware of - you don't open valves if you don't know where they lead.

He didn't know where they led, and was negligent in opening them and leaving them open, as he had no idea where they led. Not only did the plumber trespass on the OMC's / Irish Water's network, but this trespass led to another trespass on the OMC's and OP's building.

The validity of this argument depends on whether installing uncapped outlets is indeed negligent, a breach of code, a breach of the normal standards of a competent plumber, etc.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Paulw

Lantus wrote: »

The block insurance is a no go as the excess is 2500. Personally I think that this is too low as an excess but that's an aside.

Too low or too high?

Block insurance excess can be anything from €1,000 to €10,000, depending on claims, cover, etc. In our own block, we had a number of small-ish claims in a year, and the best insurance quotes we got had an excess of €10,000, or if we exclude water damage, then €5,000. We went with the €5,000, and for 3 years we had to put up with that. After that, we got the excess back down to €1,000 (all cover).

There are only 3-4 companies that do block insurance in Ireland, so you are very limited.

Check if your own contents insurance policy will cover flooring. Some do, but most don't.

I think this plumber that came is a bit of a cowboy, and should be the one footing the bill.

Irish Water are poor at communication, but any decent plumber would have given them a quick call before turning on a mains valve.

Peregrinus

I know nothing about plumbing - I just turn the tap, and expect water to come out - so I have no idea whether this was a case of (a) negligent design/installation of the plumbing, or (b) negligence by the plumber who opened the valves and didn't close them, or (c) both (though I kind of have a hunch that it's probably (c)). The point is there's ample room for argument as between those responsible for (a) and those responsible for (b) as to which of them is liable to the OP and, if they both are, in what proportions. All of which makes for expense and delay in getting compensated.

Lantus

Paulw wrote:

Block insurance excess can be anything from €1,000 to €10,000, depending on claims, cover, etc. In our own block, we had a number of small-ish claims in a year, and the best insurance quotes we got had an excess of €10,000, or if we exclude water damage, then €5,000. We went with the €5,000, and for 3 years we had to put up with that. After that, we got the excess back down to €1,000 (all cover).

The difficulty with low excess for water damage specifically is that it can be seen as an easy way for the less honest owner to renew their kitchen through a claim.

These policies are very expensive with premiums in the 5 to 50k region. As with any other policy a claim history can have a big affect on that premium which affects everyone.

Directors should take reasonable steps to protect their members by ensuring that the excess is not too low so as to incur otherwise small claims that should probably not be realised on these policies.

Insurers can actually promote lower excesses but then it's in their interest. As you say there are only a few insurers and any claim allows them to legitimately inflate the premium. If the insurer is happy to lower the excess then my cynical mind concluded that it must be financially beneficial long term to the insurer. Ergo I tend to request it be set higher even when they try to lower it as a benefit of the policy being sold.

sbsquarepants

Victor wrote: »

It is probably something that a competent plumber should be aware of - you don't open valves if you don't know where they lead.

He didn't know where they led, and was negligent in opening them and leaving them open, as he had no idea where they led. Not only did the plumber trespass on the OMC's / Irish Water's network, but this trespass led to another trespass on the OMC's and OP's building.

What do you mean by OMC, and do you know who actually owns those valves?

When it happened first I assumed it was an internal problem, I was in work the missus rang me, I told her how to turn off the water to our apartment but when that didn't stop it I guessed it has to be the mains, so we rang the management company, the council and Irish water, to get someone to shut the valves - All 3 refused to do it!
I came home from work and managed to stop the 2 in the apartment myself by clamping the pipes with vice grips but just couldn't get the water out - I didn't know about the 3rd underground one at this stage.
Eventually we got the plumber back and he closed the valves - only after the water subsided did we discover the 3rd one through trial and error opening one valve at a time. It was approx. 4 - 5 hours after the fact before anyone from the council or the management company
turned up

Edit: - Actually thinking about it was closer to 6 hours. They both arrived together just after 6pm - flooding began before 12:30!

Lantus wrote: »

Insurers can actually promote lower excesses but then it's in their interest. As you say there are only a few insurers and any claim allows them to legitimately inflate the premium. If the insurer is happy to lower the excess then my cynical mind concluded that it must be financially beneficial long term to the insurer. Ergo I tend to request it be set higher even when they try to lower it as a benefit of the policy being sold.

I'm not sure I follow - do you mean they try set it low to begin with so they can bump it after a claim to deter further claims? Why not just set it high to begin with?

Lantus

sbsquarepants wrote:

I'm not sure I follow - do you mean they try set it low to begin with so they can bump it after a claim to deter further claims? Why not just set it high to begin with?

Well water damage incurs a limited loss compared to say fire. It typically affects internal finishes which are limited in what the policy covers. So it would be fairly well known by the insurers what sort of claims would be realised and the value. Against that they can consider long term increases in premiums which from a business perspective should outweigh any short term payout.

You see this all the time in standard house insurance claims. Person claims for say 500eu but premium goes up from 400 to 1000 next year and only drops incrementally year on year from the new higher figure of 1000. Let's say it drops 100 a year. So the insured claims 500 in year 1 but will pay an additional 600 year 1, 500 year 2 and so on for a total additional premium pay out of 2100. Ethics aside this is just good business for an insurer.

sbsquarepants

As the adage goes - insurance companies don't pay claims, their customers do, insurance companies merely handle the transaction!

Victor

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What do you mean by OMC

The Owner's Management Company, the company that owns and runs the property - not to be confused with the management agent.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

and do you know who actually owns those valves?

It will depend on whatever arrangements are in place. It would either be the OMC or Irish Water. Irish Water valves would tend to be on the public footpath.

In other cases it might be a group water scheme.

sbsquarepants

Victor wrote: »

The Owner's Management Company, the company that owns and runs the property - not to be confused with the management agent..

I assume this would basically be some form of independent subsidiary of the builder would it? How do I find out who exactly they are?
To be honest I always just assumed that any common areas outside the building were owned by the council, kind of the same way the footpaths, green areas etc in a housing estate are.

Victor wrote: »

It will depend on whatever arrangements are in place. It would either be the OMC or Irish Water. Irish Water valves would tend to be on the public footpath.

In other cases it might be a group water scheme.

It's not a group water scheme, it's just the normal mains water. These valves are on the "public" footpath. I'm not sure who actually owns the footpath - as I said I always just assumed it was the council.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nuac

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have been at Management AGMs or Board meetings.

I have heard several managing agents justify their fee by saying that they can e.g. find a plumber on a Sunday morning. The agent should be contactable 24/7