Leak from check valve

[Plumforum]

Hi.. Flat upstairs had a leak over Christmas - They were on holiday and some damage was caused to my flat. The tenants above explained that the leak came from the valve below the main water supply handle, and that a plumber came only a month beforehand to fix this part, that then leaked again over Christmas. Any thoughts/advice on what happened and best next steps? I am told it has been fixed.. photos before and after attached.

 

[Deleted member 120897]

If has leaked after the plumbers repair, looks like it could have been from the replacement nut, perhaps not tight enough, or over tightened hence ptfe?

 

[Ric2013]

The nut was cracked in the before photo. It's not supposed to have a split in it. I take it this photo was taken between the two repairs.

The new nut on the after photo should be fine. My only concern is that if the old nut had been overtightened, then it may have nozzled the pipe and it might have been better to cut out and replace the nozzled section of pipe rather than rely on PTFE to get the joint to seal on nozzled pipe if that is what he has done. Realistically, not having fitted the new nut myself, I'm not able to judge if the pipe was nozzled or not and I would tend to rely on the judgement of whoever fitted the new nut.

My next step would be to contact the landlord and explain you need to claim against his insurance.

 

[Plumforum]

Thanks so much for the replies... really appreciate it. I contacted the above tenants estate agents who manage the flat and they told me to raise it with my insurance, which I did. We have the same building insurance as we all pay it into the service charge, and so I assume the insurance company wont try to claim anything (i.e., back from themselves), but will cover repairs. Guess it seems a bit unfair to me.. I have the damages, stress, quotes, repairs, black mark on my insurance for claiming.. and there does not seem to be any consequence for others. Would the plumbers insurance come into it at all? Yes the photos are after the leak (with damage), and then how it is now (plumber came back to repair it).

 

[Plumforum]

The nut was cracked in the before photo. It's not supposed to have a split in it. I take it this photo was taken between the two repairs.

The new nut on the after photo should be fine. My only concern is that if the old nut had been overtightened, then it may have nozzled the pipe and it might have been better to cut out and replace the nozzled section of pipe rather than rely on PTFE to get the joint to seal on nozzled pipe if that is what he has done. Realistically, not having fitted the new nut myself, I'm not able to judge if the pipe was nozzled or not and I would tend to rely on the judgement of whoever fitted the new nut.

My next step would be to contact the landlord and explain you need to claim against his insurance.

Thanks so much for the replies... really appreciate it. I contacted the above tenants estate agents who manage the flat and they told me to raise it with my insurance, which I did. We have the same building insurance as we all pay it into the service charge, and so I assume the insurance company wont try to claim anything (i.e., back from themselves), but will cover repairs. Guess it seems a bit unfair to me.. I have the damages, stress, quotes, repairs, black mark on my insurance for claiming.. and there does not seem to be consequence for others. Would the plumbers insurance come into it at all? Yes the before photos are after the leak (with damage), and the after is how it is now (plumber came back to repair it and put a new nut).

 

[Ric2013]

I'm sure the plumber could be sued, but it's seriously rare for a nut to crack like that (nut overtightened or not). Since the plumber didn't supply the original nut (which looks to be of some age), I'm not sure how you could possibly prove the failure of the component was down to his actions.

I think you're in the situation a lot of people have with car accidents in that they usually claim off their insurance because it's usually less hassle. You can, of course, sue the owner of the property above if that's your thing and you feel there should be consequences (of the responsibilities of ownership, more than the responsibilities of action which would be hard to prove), but you'd have to seek legal advice as to what the damages and repairs and black mark (same thing surely?) and stress and time wasted are worth.

 

[Plumforum]

I'm sure the plumber could be sued, but it's seriously rare for a nut to crack like that (nut overtightened or not). Since the plumber didn't supply the original nut (which looks to be of some age), I'm not sure how you could possibly prove the failure of the component was down to his actions.

I think you're in the situation a lot of people have with car accidents in that they usually claim off their insurance because it's usually less hassle. You can, of course, sue the owner of the property above if that's your thing and you feel there should be consequences (of the responsibilities of ownership, more than the responsibilities of action which would be hard to prove), but you'd have to seek legal advice as to what the damages and repairs and black mark (same thing surely?) and stress and time wasted are worth.

Thanks so much for reply. I guess I thought that because the plumber came a month before the leak to fix that part, they must have done a poor job for it to leak a month later, rather than bad luck (even though the nut seems old). But yeah what you said makes sense.. Thanks again for the advice

 

[Ric2013]

Thanks so much for reply. I guess I thought that because the plumber came a month before the leak to fix that part, they must have done a poor job for it to leak a month later, rather than bad luck (even though the nut seems old). But yeah what you said makes sense.. Thanks again for the advice

Your guess may be correct, but I expect it'd be a case of proving A that the nut failure was due to bad installation and B that no one had knocked into or tampered with the joint since. Ultimately, I would imagine legal responsibility lies with the flat owner above you, but hard to hold a personal grudge with this kind of thing - after all, no one wants leaks.

One thing that has occurred to me is that (assuming the water is coming UP the pipe), it would make more sense for that anti-backflow valve to be above the mains stopcock (isolator). This would mean fewer joints left under pressure if they go on holiday and turn everything off at the stopcock (do non-plumbers do this when they go away for a few days?)

 

[Plumforum]

On a practical point a view is it worth me speaking directly to the plumber to see their views on what happened a months before the leak when they came to fix that part? Not for a personal grudge, but to resolve this in a fair way, and maybe to reduce the impact on my insurance. A bit technical for me but I think the valve is above, and yes turning everything off would have prevented the leak

 

[Plumforum]

Your guess may be correct, but I expect it'd be a case of proving A that the nut failure was due to bad installation and B that no one had knocked into or tampered with the joint since. Ultimately, I would imagine legal responsibility lies with the flat owner above you, but hard to hold a personal grudge with this kind of thing - after all, no one wants leaks.

One thing that has occurred to me is that (assuming the water is coming UP the pipe), it would make more sense for that anti-backflow valve to be above the mains stopcock (isolator). This would mean fewer joints left under pressure if they go on holiday and turn everything off at the stopcock (do non-plumbers do this when they go away for a few days?)

On a practical point a view is it worth me speaking directly to the plumber to see their views on what happened a months before the leak when they came to fix that part? Not for a personal grudge, but to resolve this in a fair way, and maybe to reduce the impact on my insurance. A bit technical for me but I think the valve is above, and yes turning everything off would have prevented the leak

 

[Plumforum]

On a practical point a view is it worth me speaking directly to the plumber to see their views on what happened a months before the leak when they came to fix that part? Not for a personal grudge, but to resolve this in a fair way, and maybe to reduce the impact on my insurance. A bit technical for me but I think the valve is above, and yes turning everything off would have prevented the leak

OK from what I searched it does not reduce the impact on my insurance so not much point I guess.. Your initial advice seems the way to go