Who Is Responsible For Paying For Redecorating.

[Hazlinny]

My friend (Mrs. M) livea on the ground floor of a tenement building - the family in the upstairs house recently had a bathroom fitted, About two weeks later Mrs. M. was aware of water dripping into her bedroom and, on investigation, it was found that water from the new bath was not emptying into the drain but along the floor and seeping into Mrs. M's celing and wall. Mr. Y upstairs contacted the plumbing company who came and repaired the leak and was told they would be sent the bill for redecoration as Mrs. M did not want to go down the "insurance claim" road. Owner of plumbing company just doesn't respond to requests for payment and Mr Y not really interested in pursuing the case. At the end of the day, who should really be responsible for the redecoration ceiling/wall of Mrs. M's house?

[Bazile]

Mr Y

[bhg481]

Yes, Mr Y, and it's down to him to seek redress from the plumber.

[bednobs]

Mr y. If he wants to seek redress from the plumber he can, or he can pay it himself or if he has insurance that'll cover it they can, but the responsibility lies with him. His agent cause the damage, therefore he has to pay. How he does that is no concern of Mrs M

[Hazlinny]

Thank you to the 3 of you - my thoughts exactly but just wanted to make sure!

[Deskdiary]

I don't agree.

Mr Y employed a plumber to undertake work, and the plumber, it appears, didn't do so correctly.

I assume Mr Y had no reason to believe the plumber had not undertaken the work correctly, and therefore had no reason to believe there would be a leak - in which case, how is the damage to Mrs M's flat Mr Y's fault?

For him to be responsible for the damage to Mrs M's flat, fault to him would need to attach.

IF he is at fault (i.e, using hindsight it can be demonstrated that he knew there was a reasonable chance of a leak), then liability could attach, but if he didn't know there was a reasonable chance there could be a leak, then I'm struggling to see why he would be legally liable for Mrs M's damage.

[JJ109]

Agency Laws, deskdiary. The pluber was his agent, and the principle Mr Y is responsible for his agent. It makes no difference whether the plumber is respectable or not, the principle Mr Y is responsible for the action of the agent.

Mr Y can take action against the plumber, but that does not concern Mrs M

[JJ109]

^^principal

[Deskdiary]

I'm pretty sure the law of agency wouldn't apply in this situation JJ109.

An agent is a relationship under which the law recognises a person as having the power to create or alter legal rights, duties or relationships of another person, the principal.

If the law of agency applied to situations described in the original question, then you could have a scenario whereby a householder employs a roofer and the roofer drops a hammer on a passerby's head - in your scenario you're saying the householder will be responsible for injury to the passerby.

[Peter Pedant]

Both

but you can only take one amount -

and I would go for the people up above as it is easier
responsible is not the operative word
which party is it easiest to get moolah out of? people above