Insurance payouts after a water leak in a Freehold flat?

I have had a similar situation and we also have RTM.
I was paid directly by the insurer and then chose my own contractor to carry out the works.
Unless Contractually with the insurers there is a clause stating that you have to use the plumber with the winning quote then I would push to have the monies paid to you directly.

Depends on the stance of the freehold management company as they have the buildings insurance on behalf of the lessees, not you directly. Unless your partner is an active Director on the board, any request to change the contractor used will involve the 2 resident Board members you mentioned liaising on your behalf with the insurer. If your partner has good relations with the Board, he might request they look into this; if his only input is to stump up his service charge each year he might decide it’s not worth potentially upsetting neighbourly relations. There’s no guarantee the insurer would agree to change anyway.

Reply to the comment left by Andy at 31/03/2025 – 12:14
Thanks Andy, I was afraid that might be the case. We do get on very well with the Director of the management company and it could be that she feels it would be helpful if she dealt directly with the plumber. However, she did say in writing that once the money was in the Freehold company account she would pay it directly to my partner. I wonder if the sum payable to the other flay owner has been paid directly to them.
Even if we have to use the plumber whose quote the insurance company chose, it would seem fair that as the flat owner, my partner should have free will to manage the works himself?
Your view on this would be welcome. Thanks, Christine

Reply to the comment left by David Smith at 31/03/2025 – 10:59
Thanks David, I’m guessing the claim was made directly by yourself to the insurance company? Was the claim under the Buildings insurance or Contents As I understand it Contents are insured by each freeholder independently but the Buildings is paid for by the Freehold company and financed by the service charge. Thanks, Christine

Reply to the comment left by Christine Deane at 31/03/2025 – 12:34
It was Building Insurance and claim was made through the managing agents.

Reply to the comment left by David Smith at 31/03/2025 – 10:59
Also I can not see that the RTM Company has any right to appoint a contractor within your property.

Well I do tend to agree. Thank you for your reply.

My thoughts are that all the valves etc in the building need to be adjusted as well as repaired and a certificate or warranty issued to the man co copied to the Insurers of satisfactory structural repair.

This warranty would be needed if the insurers were changed and also a copy will need to be supplied by the Man Co with LPE1 form at a sale of the lease.

If one does their own repair then the Man Co will not have a warranty and also the insurers will not allow it.

Is building insurance a cost to service charge in the leases or a separate cost. If falls under service charge it may require section 20 consultation and another plumber chosen.

Hi Kizzie
Thanks for your comments. The plumbing in the building was not done very well from the start. The issue about the high water pressure as a potential cause of the fracture to the incoming main stopcock and pressure relief valve is not known to the insurers as it was not known to be the case before the claim was put forward. I suspect it will not be disclosed now either.
The Building Insurance policy is taken out by the Freehold Managing Company and each of the freehold owners (there are 10 and each own 10% of the Management Co) pay the same amount each annually in the service charge. I don’t know what a Section 20 consultation is but would welcome any insights on any of this mess! Thanks

Landlord & tenant act 1985 legally requires the RMC residents management co. acting on behalf of the Lessor or Landlord when entering contract of over 12 months to undertake consultation with lessees/tenants over three contracts. Full details on LEASE website.
You said the MA has a plumber contract which is in fact with the RMC because the MA acts on behalf of the RMC and a section 20 consultation should have been undertaken with that contract. So that plumber did not report those other issues.

These other undeclared problems have to be dealt with so could you inform the MA that you have legal obligation to conduct a section 20 consultation and agree a new?
Contract with a plumber and then tell the insurers you wish to use ‘your’ plumber for the insured repairs.

Then get this new plumber to also repair the undeclared repairs hopefully out of the settlement and issue the Warranty to the Man Co