S'pore man blames upstairs neighbour after water leak damaged electrical box, sought S$70,000 in damages but gets only S$7,000

A Singapore homeowner who sought over S$70,000 in compensation after claiming water leaks from the unit above, delayed his family's move into their newly purchased resale flat, and lost the bulk of his case.

According to the grounds of decision published by the Strata Titles Board (STB), it was found that while waterproofing defects in the upstairs neighbour's two bathrooms caused some seepage into the lower unit, the major leak that damaged the homeowner's relocated electrical distribution board was more likely caused by a water pipe within his own unit.

The board also found that delays to the family's move-in were primarily due to ongoing renovation works, rather than the water leaks.

The dispute involved units at Bedok Court, a condominium along Bedok South Ave 3.

The applicant, Sumeet Kumar, owned the lower-floor apartment, while the respondent, Chee May Wenn, owned the unit directly above.

Sumeet bought the resale flat and began extensive renovation works, including hacking, rewiring and replacing the unit's plumbing system before moving in.

His family had intended to move into the apartment after their rental lease expired in August 2025.

The leaks

In June 2025, water leaked from the ceiling into Sumeet's courtyard.

After being notified of this, Chee carried out repairs around her washing machine and kitchen floor trap areas in July 2025 based on recommendations from Sumeet's then-contractor.

Sumeet later confirmed via email that the leaks had stopped.

However, renovation works in Kumar's unit continued beyond August 2025, and in mid-September 2025, new and far more serious leaks emerged.

Sumeet said a large volume of water poured from the ceiling directly above the main circuit breaker (MCB) in his kitchen, causing the electrical panel to trip.

He described the leaks as a "non-stop flow of water".

The MCB subsequently emitted sparks and caught fire by the end of September 2025, and the following month, a direct stream of water leaked from the ceiling into the MCB starting a fire in the MCB, causing the power supply to be shut down for safety reasons.

He claimed the leak prevented electricity from being restored, forcing renovation works to stop and leaving his family unable to move into the flat until January 2026.

He sought S$45,358.75 in special damages, including alternative accommodation costs, repairs, replacement of the electrical distribution board, and other expenses.

He also sought S$25,000 in general damages for stress, inconvenience and loss of use of the property.

Electrical panel had been relocated

STB has identified numerous suspicious points regarding the severe water leakage that caused the electrical box to short-circuit.

The board later found that Sumeet had relocated the main circuit breaker without obtaining approval from the management corporation, the Building and Construction Authority or any other authority.

He also could not confirm whether the relocated electrical installation had been carried out by a licensed electrical worker.

The board found the relocation was unauthorised and in breach of regulatory requirements.

While ponding tests later confirmed waterproofing failures in the respondent's two bathrooms, the testing report did not identify the source of the heavy leak affecting the electrical panel.

Instead, the contractor engaged by Sumeet had earlier observed that the volume of water appeared more consistent with "a waterpipe issue" than waterproofing failure.

The board also found that the pattern of damage did not match seepage from the upstairs bathrooms, noting there were no corresponding seepage marks in the kitchen ceiling above the electrical panel.

It concluded that the large volume of water was more consistent with a leak from water supply pipes serving Sumeet's own unit.

As a result, the board held that Chee was not liable for damage to the electrical panel or related losses.

Delayed move-in caused by renovation

The board also rejected Sumeet's claim that the earlier water leaks prevented his family from moving into the apartment in August 2025.

It noted that substantial renovation works were still underway months after the initial leaks had been repaired, including incomplete kitchens, carpentry and electrical works.

Evidence also showed Kumar's first contractor stopped work around September 2025, while a replacement contractor only resumed renovation in December 2025.

The board concluded that the apartment remained unready for occupation primarily because renovation works had not been completed, rather than because of the neighbour's leaks.

Most of the claims dismissed

Although the board dismissed most of Kumar's claims, it found Chee liable for water seepage caused by failed waterproofing membranes in her two bathrooms.

It ordered her to engage a BCA-registered contractor to replace the waterproofing in both bathrooms and provide a successful 24-hour water ponding test within six weeks.

She was also ordered to pay Sumeet S$3,000 for repairs relating to damage caused by the bathroom leaks, S$45.15 for an inspection report, S$600 in STB hearing fees, and S$4,000 in legal costs.

The board rejected claims for alternative accommodation, replacement of the electrical distribution board, emotional distress and other consequential losses.