Freeholder responsible for costs after flooding?

Frank
Contractual responsibility depends on the terms of the lease. However, the freeholder may well be responsible under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. I suggest you and the other tenants see a solicitor who can advise and if necessary send a letter to the freeholder demanding that he pay for the damage.
It is not certain that the owners of undamaged doors can recover the cost of replacement just to match doors.
If the freeholder is providing a bad service, you should look into a Right to Manage company.

The freeholder is merely a conduit.
He provides services as laid down in the Lease(s).
He recoups the same from the lessees or owners of the flats.
Ultimately, it is you who pay.
The freeholder does not pay out of his pocket.
Either it was an insurance claim, probably not pursued because of the excess, or it fell to be paid by the lessees.
The lessees would pay for any insurance excess, or to deal with the cost of remedial works due to flooding.

If the doors don’t meet the new fire regulations they will need to be replaced anyway.

Reply to the comment left by SCP at 09/01/2023 – 10:50
“Ultimately, it is you who pay.
The freeholder does not pay out of his pocket.”

That is not necessarily true. It depends. If water has escaped from a part of the property not demised to a lessee then the freeholder may be liable. The claim against the freeholder may be covered by buildings’ insurance or, possibly, by the freeholder’s liability insurance.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 09/01/2023 – 12:02
You are, of course, correct in thinking about unusual circumstances.
You have mentioned the Rylands principle, which is tort.
We are most likely concerned with contractual liability.
Which freeholder will have leases drafted in such a manner that he becomes liable for repairs or other exigencies without any reimbursement from the lessees, if not covered by insurance?