Tenant has £5000 commercial water bill

[Skyway]

Recently had notice from my tenant that they have been contacted by the council to let them know their water bill is around £5000 (usually several hundred pounds every 6 months) and that it may be due to a leak. A leak has now been traced to a pipe running under the commercial premises and is due to be fixed. Speaking to my insurance broker it would appear the burst pipe is not likely to be covered by the insurance as it likely to be wear and tear/corrosion and not accidental damage, therefore not an insured risk.

My tenant will not miss the opportunity to take legal advice/action for the water bill even though the lease clearly states they are responsible for the utilities, it is also a fully repairing lease but they are not liable to maintain/repair something that maybe an insured risk. To throw something else into the mix, they have been paying the water bill for the 2 flats above the commercial property (1 person in each flat, probably £20 per month) for this year to date as I completely forgot that as part of my agreement with the flat tenants I would let them use our water supply when I was using the commercial property myself (up the end of last year). A separate meter is due to be installed now.

I'm waiting on advice from my solicitor but wondered if anyone else had anything similar relating to a high water bill caused by a non insured pipe?

[LordHaveMurci]

Not sure if its the same for commercial but water co’s cover the cost of lost water at residential, ask me how I know, and it was more than £5k!

[Jeremy-75qq8]

I had something similar. The tenant was responsible from the point the pipe entered the demised premesis under the lease.

The leak was outside the building but in the car park which was part of the lease

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

Skyway said:

Speaking to my insurance broker it would appear the burst pipe is not likely to be covered by the insurance as it likely to be wear and tear/corrosion and not accidental damage, therefore not an insured risk.

I get that the repair to the pipe might not be covered, but the water cost is a consequential loss?

[siheb]

I have had similar recently. Leak in a private car park I own between the mains and entry point to a tenants flat. Was only discovered because the tenants readings went ballistic. The water company gave him six months “leak” leeway to get it fixed and did not charge for the extra usage. Ultimately it wasn’t an insured loss and although I had to pay for the repair, which was a royal pita and quite expensive to find, the water company did not charge for the excess lost water during this time and absorbed it themselves. I suggest you should aim for them to do the same in your case…

[Insurancejon]

Have you checked your insurance?

Many property owners policies contain “loss of metered water”

If you need a hand deciphering the wording drop me a pm

[guitarcarfanatic]

Plus ask them to investigate the leak - they are assuming wear and tear….but have they proved it? This is my industry - most insurers we work for pay us to expose the pipe to prove cause (and we have to re-instate after). If they quote Trace and Access, they are barking up the wrong tree as well - that relates to escape of water. This is you claiming under the Accidental Damage to Underground Services section of your policy. If you insist, they should send someone to investigate (normally a drainage/water services supplier).