Boiler destroyed! Not my fault. Who should pay?

Olympus

LinasPilibaitisisbatman. What is 'tbh' and 'OP'?

Contains_Mild_Peril

tbh = to be honest, OP = original poster (in this case, you) or original post.

FlameCloud wrote: »

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?

Since landlords have a legal obligation to have gas appliances including boilers in tenanted properties serviced annually, I would surmise that once a year would generally be considered reasonable for most legal purposes.

MarkyMarkD

I think that's a rash assumption.

There is a serious difference between what a landlord is meant to do for his tenants, and what an owner occupier is required to do in their own property.

I'm afraid that I still don't agree with the OP that what happened was a forseeable consequence of leaving the filling loop open. If the neighbour had known that would be the consequence, they presumably wouldn't have left it open in the first place. Most people haven't got a clue about how their boilers work.

And if the consequence wasn't forseeable from the action, the neighbour wasn't negligent (legally) and their insurer is right to refuse to pay up.

None of this prevents the OP asking their neighbour for a contribution, given that morally this is entirely the neighbour's fault. I would suggest that should be the way to pursue this in the first instance.

losgiganteskid

Olympus wrote: »

I assumed that my neighbour's home contents insurance with Lloyds/TSB would settle with me and I wrote to them asking for settlement.

I do symathize with you - however - why did you write to Lloyds TSB ? - all claims are personal - you believe you have a valid claim against your neighbour so you should have merely presented your neighbour with the receipted account and asked him to re-imburse you. If your neighbour wanted his insurers to deal with the matter on his behalf he would have contacted them himself.

The outcome either way as far as you are concerned may have been the same.

If you don't mind falling out (possibly) with your neighbour you can explain that his/her insurers are not paying for repairs to your boiler and you are looking to him personally to reimburse you. (That might have the effect of your neighbour leaning on his insurers (to whom he has paid a premium), to pay you).

If he/she values you as a good neighbour he/she just may reimburse you. Although, as has been said before you normally have to show negligence on behalf of the neighbour, which may be difficult.

bestyman

Me again,
It might be an idea to ask the upstairs neighbour to have the pipe moved slightly to stop this happening again.
Pressure relief pipes are usually bent back on themselves so discharged water runs onto the wall and not on to people below as sometimes the water can be scalding hot.
Whatever happens don`t stop end the pipe! I`ve seen it done before.

jonesMUFCforever

How does OP know that the neighbour's boiler has not been serviced in 2 years?

tyllwyd

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

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?

Yes, I agree it is probably better not to make a claim, but at the same time, if he is insured for damage for his property, and he wants to make the claim why shouldn't he be able to? If there is an excess, who would pay it - I assume it should be shared equally between all the policyholders since it is a joint policy? If the boiler is part of the building, and they have joint insurance on the building, it seems to me that it would make sense for them to share the cost of the claim that they would otherwise make so that they have the joint benefit of not increasing premiums and not paying the excess. In any case, the neighbour is involved to some extent, so it would seem fair to me that they should make some contribution, at least.

Olympus

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

How does OP know that the neighbour's boiler has not been serviced in 2 years?

Because I asked them and they told me so.

dunstonh

I'm lost on this thread. Can we just confirm the following:

The OPs property suffered damage but they dont want to use their own insurance but get someone elses to pay for it.

Lloyds (the other insurance) dont want to pay as they have no liability (as no negligence on the part of their policyholder) and b) their policy doesnt cover your property.

If that is correct then I cannot see any issue here. You claim on your policy. That is what it is there for.

losgiganteskid

dunstonh wrote: »

I'm lost on this thread. Can we just confirm the following:

The OPs property suffered damage but they dont want to use their own insurance but get someone elses to pay for it.

Lloyds (the other insurance) dont want to pay as they have no liability (as no negligence on the part of their policyholder) and b) their policy doesnt cover your property.

If that is correct then I cannot see any issue here. You claim on your policy. That is what it is there for.

From reading the original post I don't think Olympus has a policy. His freeholder has one (to which Olympus contributes) but for the reasons given the freeholder does not wish to submit a claim due to:-

a) a possible loss of NCB and/or an increase in premium to which all tenants would have to contribute and

b) an excess (for an amount we know not) which will have to be paid.