The Lemon Fool

jfgw wrote:Boilers do not have overflow pipes.

What does the pipe look like? If it is copper and pointing back toward the wall, it is the outlet from the pressure-relief valve. This is the water that runs through your radiators and is about as corrosive as rain water.

Julian F. G. W.

Julian - I went to the apartment today to take photos of said 'overflow' and position of downstairs' Flue - - and sure enough, you were right - what I had seen as an 'overflow' pipe [and described as uPVC] - is in fact a dinky copper pipe that points back to [almost touching] the wall. So it is outlet from pressure-relief valve. [Ground Floor say they 'heard it dripping at 4.00 a.m. one morning in early January. Not sure why the system would let water through at that point, as my Mother had not used the boiler / heating / hot water at all until we got Vaillant out 10 days' ago. But anyway.] The good news is your info that the water in the radiator system is non-corrosive - - so I do not see what claim the Ground Floor can make against my Mother. If it is virtually 'ordinary water', that makes the 'drip' from that outlet no more serious than heavy rain. Which there was a lot of around the time they say their boiler developed the problem. Thank you so much for your help, Julian.

RedSnapper wrote:If you are certain, or can establish, that your mother's overflow was in place before the flue then I would have thought that would be your best defense. After all, an overflow is likely to at least drip at times, that is it's essential function. If that dripping can damage a boiler through water entering the flue then it is surely bad practice at best to site the flue directly beneath the overflow.

Yes, the overflow [now identified as Radiators pressure-relief valve] is original. Its twin is sited approx. 12 feet directly below - the pressure-relief valve for the Ground Floor system. Boilers for both apartments have been replaced in the years since the property was converted, and the rectangular 'making good' areas from previous positioning of the Flues on both Ground and First Floors can be seen in the 'patched' appearance of the surface of the render to the outside wall. So, in brief, the pressure-relief valves are both in their original positions, and both Boilers have been replaced - with replacement Flues in new positions. And Ground Floor Flue is a poor looking device even to my untrained eye. There is a distinctly 'unfinished' look to the thing, which suggests the unit was intended to be fitted with an outside cover. It looks like it can take in water from every direction - really looks like there may be some part of it missing [to be precise, a cover for the thing]. Maybe the situation is not too bleak after all. I will contact Boiler Install companies tomorrow, to get their comments on the style of Ground Floor Flue.

Very many thanks, all - including Scott and Didds I really appreciate you all taking the trouble to consider the problem, as I want very much if I can to try to find a solution that does not involve telling my Mum that her downstairs neighbours are minded to take her to Court I will post update once I have more info.

Hello boys and girls,

I've heard by email from the OP and we've had a bit of a discussion. One point not yet discussed is that in flats, if a flat owner gets water pouring through their ceiling then the buildings insurance pays for the structural damage I believe, and the leaseholder claims on their own insurance for damage to their possessions. IS that right?

This situation would seem analogous to me. Would be most interested to hear the true legal position regarding liability, setting aside the order in which these boilers were installed, which seems to be in doubt.

M4

Mike4 wrote:One point not yet discussed is that in flats, if a flat owner gets water pouring through their ceiling then the buildings insurance pays for the structural damage I believe, and the leaseholder claims on their own insurance for damage to their possessions. IS that right?

Hi, M4!

My experience is that a failure in pipework that is specifically demised under the lease is down to the leaseholder. The flat below claims against that leaseholder (who may or may not have insurance to cover the risk) for damages to decorations, furniture, effects, etc..

According to leases I have held, if the failure is in 'common parts' pipework (anything up to but not including the stop-valve for a specific flat) then the claim is on the buildings insurance and the excess on the policy is paid from the service charge account (which saved money on the insurance by opting to have an excess and not insuring 100% of the risk).

Waste is similar in that anything in a flat up to a union with shared (i.e. 'common parts') pipes is down to the leaseholder with common parts belonging to the freeholder and therefore covered by the buildings insurance.

Rainwater goods would be 'common parts'.

I guess that, as ever, it all depends on the wording of the leases involved.

Cheers!

Being a bit of a cynic, are you sure that they've not also claimed off the previous owner for the same thing?

pompeygazza wrote:Being a bit of a cynic, are you sure that they've not also claimed off the previous owner for the same thing?

Or maybe even "tried and failed" to claim off the previous owner, and are having a second bite at the cherry.

pompeygazza wrote:Being a bit of a cynic, are you sure that they've not also claimed off the previous owner for the same thing?

If the previous owner had had a dispute about it (a dispute with a neighbour), surely that MUST be disclosed in the sale? Failure to do so could lead to a claim much bigger than the cost of a boiler against the vendor.

IANAL.

would a simple rejected claim count as a dispute though if taken no further?

1: you've damaged my boiler, please cough the cash
2: err... no

1 walks away etc.

didds