Boiler destroyed! Not my fault. Who should pay?

Olympus

Post removed

MarkyMarkD

Welcome to MSE, Olympus.

Unfortunately for you, I agree with the neighbours' insurance company. It's not particularly negligent to have not had a boiler serviced for two years. I'm not sure why it would have started leaking, but it may have been completely unconnected with the lack of servicing.

The real cause of the problem was that your flue allowed water into your boiler. I can't understand why that should have happened - why doesn't rain just pour into it? Surely the flue should have a cowl over it to prevent water falling from above entering the boiler?

Olympus

Thanks for your advice MarkyMarkD, but your opinion is out of step with everyone else that I have spoken to.

The flue has never let rain water in. It was a concentrated and continual jet of water from above that caused the damage. That's very different to rain! The engineer from Worcester-Bosch who repaired my boiler, found no issue with the flue.

My neighbour's boiler had not been serviced regularly, as recommended by all manufacturers and installers. This allowed it to develop the fault that caused the water leak.

If the boiler had leaked gas or carbon monoxide and killed the occupants, would you still think that was "not particularly negligent?"

Negligence in a general sense, means 'carelessness' causing personal injury, damage to property or financial losses.

I think it is careless to neglect a boiler, thus allowing it to develop a serious fault that damages a neighbour's property.

FlameCloud

Unfortunatly, you are talking about negligence in a legal sense, not a general 'what my mates thought down the pub'. The first legal definition regarding negligence comes from a court case in the case Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856). It has been backed up by several decisions since, and all of them back up the belief that if the event was unforseen it was not negligence. How often would you say it is reasonable to service a boiler?

Ultimatly, if you believe the third party insurers are wrong then your only actions are to issue legal procedings against them, but be aware that that in law, you are wrong.

bestyman

Speaking as a plumber Im not sure whos liable but can give an opinion on the cause.
The pipe above that leaked water was probably the pressure relief pipe from a combination boiler. This pipe is connected to the boiler at the pressure relief valve so when the pressure goes above 3 bar water will discharge from this pipe rather than have an unsafe pressure within the system .
The most probable cause of too high a pressure is that the user has filled up the boiler with too much water, a very common problem is the householder leaves the filling tap/valve open so water is permanantly filling the system and discharging.
A fault with the boiler can also cause water to discharge but this would be a very small amount, in my opinion not enough and unlikely to cause any danmage to the boiler below.
I dont think your flue is at fault as it was never designed to withstand so much water.

Olympus

You are correct bestyman. The plumber who fixed my neighbours boiler to stop the leak, did say that the filling loop had been left open. He fixed it in 2 seconds, using a screwdriver. I watched him do it.

Surely then, the water leak was foreseeable as the pressure relief system was bound to release the water. Therefore it is negligence! Isn't it?

Does anyone know whether or not that makes my neighbour liable? After all, why should I be £320 out of pocket?

FlameCloud

Olympus wrote: »

You are correct bestyman. The plumber who fixed my neighbours boiler to stop the leak, did say that the filling loop had been left open. He fixed it in 2 seconds, using a screwdriver. I watched him do it.

Surely then, the water leak was foreseeable as the pressure relief system was bound to release the water. Therefore it is negligence! Isn't it?

Does anyone know whether or not that makes my neighbour liable? After all, why should I be £320 out of pocket?

As I said, the other insurers are denying liability. The only way to change their minds is by taking them to court- although as I have said all established precedent would mean you would lose as this isnt negligence. The water leak wasnt forseeable- yes it is designed to release water but only when the pressure is too high. As a I presume this isnt a common event I wouldnt expect it to happen. The standard is what the ordinary man would do- and I am not convinced that an ordinary person knows that much about the inner workings of a boiler. At the end of the day, it is only £320, it could have been worse.

tyllwyd

If you are covered by the buildings insurance, I don't see why you shouldn't be entitled to make a claim if that's what you want to do. If the freeholder is worried that there would be an excess to pay, maybe it would make sense for everyone in the flats to contribute towards the cost of the repair, to avoid making a claim on the insurance.

Incisor

FlameCloud wrote: »

...The water leak wasnt forseeable- yes it is designed to release water but only when the pressure is too high. As a I presume this isnt a common event I wouldnt expect it to happen. ...

The filling loop was left open. The consequences are forseeable?

FlameCloud

Incisor wrote: »

The filling loop was left open. The consequences are forseeable?

To the common man? I wouldnt say so. I doubt the person who owned the boiler had any idea what the issues with this might be. Either way, the issue isnt relevent as the insurer has declined to pay for it.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

tyllwyd wrote: »

If you are covered by the buildings insurance, I don't see why you shouldn't be entitled to make a claim if that's what you want to do. If the freeholder is worried that there would be an excess to pay, maybe it would make sense for everyone in the flats to contribute towards the cost of the repair, to avoid making a claim on the insurance.

Tbh I agree with the others here about not making a claim, yes granted he probably could force a claim under the policy but for £320 minus the excess?

Once it is done he and everyone else will feel the pinch in increased claims and excess payments , Im sure he wouldnt want to accept someone else claiming for such a trivial amount

Sadly from time to time items need unforseen repairs, I think the OP needs to accept this and pay up otherwise he will just alienate the others and may well set in motion a chain where everytime anyone has the slightest damage to their property their all paying otu an excess and increasing premiums