Help, Fire!

JonSimmonds

In my place of work we have a company visit us yearly to do electrical tests, all they seam to do is unplug the plug from the mains, and attach it to a machine that I guess checks for earth etc, then a quick visual inspection (he looks at the wire to make sure not been streched etc) a portable heater we had for the staff room was tested to be "safe" first time we plugged it in for winter and sparks started to come out of it for a half a second then the fuse blew, so even if there was a electical test, unless the fridge was fully striped down to its bare compements there was no way anyone could have known that would happen, tested for saftey or not

As to not having contents insruance, id suggest even basic cover is better than none at all

I hope the damage to your flat was only "cosmetic" and it only needs redecration etc and that you can move in ASAP

BobProperty

clairehi wrote:

.... Accidental damage (consequential loss?) has occurred to his property......

It surely wasn't accidental damage, it was fire damage. I would have thought most insurers differentiate between the two. The fridge is the landlord's isn't it? so it's the landlord's problem. If he's insured his contents then the fridge should be covered, the buildings insurance should cover the fire damage to the structure and fabric of the building. If he hasn't got such cover that's his look out but he will have to pay out to put it right. The contents belonging to the tenant, which weren't insured?, are the tenants problem. You can not insure something you do not have an interest in. i.e. you have to own it (e.g. property), be renting or hireing it(e.g. car on HP), or have a legal connection to it (e.g. fellow directors in a company)

jay78

clairehi wrote:

Well this may be an old and boring scenario to you Marcus but to the OP its a big shock and trauma having his flat catch on fire - so have a little human feeling at least.

I dont think the OP is "trying it on". Accidental damage (consequential loss?) has occurred to his property. many people including owner occupiers do not have accidental damage cover on their insurance.

the difference here is that the damage was caused by his landlords property and he feels the landlord should have a duty of care, whether or not this is right in law. Personally, I would be inclined to agree and try and negotiate a reduction in rent or similar to compensate for his loss.

We were affected by flooding in our flat, and although it was not the landlords fault, he gave us a months rent rebate to compensate us for the inconvenience and distress, which we felt was a decent offer. I suppose it depends whether you want to operate like Rachman or a decent human being.

Thank you. This is the first time I've rented a place, for just 6 months. This is a NEW and UPSETTING scenario for me.

Katyag

My house was gutted by a house fire from my tumble dryer in Dec 2004. Its a council property but we had our own contents insurance.

As a friend said to me its compulsory to have car insurance it should be the same for contents insurance! If only for your own peace of mind, i dont think id sleep at night with no contents insurance!

Good luck to OP, its a situation i never wish to repeat for myself.

mcbutler1962

clairehi wrote:

Well this may be an old and boring scenario to you Marcus but to the OP its a big shock and trauma having his flat catch on fire - so have a little human feeling at least.

I dont think the OP is "trying it on". Accidental damage (consequential loss?) has occurred to his property. many people including owner occupiers do not have accidental damage cover on their insurance.

the difference here is that the damage was caused by his landlords property and he feels the landlord should have a duty of care, whether or not this is right in law. Personally, I would be inclined to agree and try and negotiate a reduction in rent or similar to compensate for his loss.

We were affected by flooding in our flat, and although it was not the landlords fault, he gave us a months rent rebate to compensate us for the inconvenience and distress, which we felt was a decent offer. I suppose it depends whether you want to operate like Rachman or a decent human being.

Claire,

Being a LL is a business, compassion does not come in to it. I recently put up a young couple in a large 2 bed appt at my own expense while I dampproofed and fully refurbished their flat (hovel) which I had just purchased. Personal cost to me over £2k, no increase on their rent. I wont see a profit from that flat for approx 8 months if nothing else goes wrong. So less of the insulting suggestions please, you don't even know me.
How did your flat come to flood anyway?

Mark

mcbutler1962

BobProperty wrote:

It surely wasn't accidental damage, it was fire damage. I would have thought most insurers differentiate between the two. The fridge is the landlord's isn't it? so it's the landlord's problem. If he's insured his contents then the fridge should be covered, the buildings insurance should cover the fire damage to the structure and fabric of the building. If he hasn't got such cover that's his look out but he will have to pay out to put it right. The contents belonging to the tenant, which weren't insured?, are the tenants problem. You can not insure something you do not have an interest in. i.e. you have to own it (e.g. property), be renting or hireing it(e.g. car on HP), or have a legal connection to it (e.g. fellow directors in a company)

Fire damage certainly is accidental damage, if its not its arson!!
Most LL do not insure contents, bldg is compulsory if mortgaged as the lender generally requires a certificate from the insurer stating their interest in the asset.
Contents are practically valueless unless you provide plasma, dvd, leather furniture etc.

mcbutler1962

Like I said, not meant to be rude or harsh, just to the point and factual.Asa a rule LL do not carry contents insurance as the value is generally very low, unless plasma etc is in the inventory.
I have never known fridge catch fire accidentally but they can without doubt get bloody hot if one of the following 3 things happens; usually the problem lies with a dirty heat exchanger (metal grill) on the back or something falling on and covering it. Also leaving the door open can do the trick quite easily and quickly in this weather.
Anyhow, enough of this. I know its a pisser, I have had properties damaged by fire and one near fatality which was very upsetting. I know where your coming from with this but at the end of the day you must get insured for your own possesions.

Be happy

Mark

BobProperty

mcbutler1962 wrote:

Fire damage certainly is accidental damage, if its not its arson!!
Most LL do not insure contents, bldg is compulsory if mortgaged as the lender generally requires a certificate from the insurer stating their interest in the asset.
Contents are practically valueless unless you provide plasma, dvd, leather furniture etc.

I was talking from an insurance point of view. Contents insurance usually for OO has an option of accidental damage for extra money. This covers things like spilling stuff on the carpet, dropping the TV when moving it etc. I would have though that most LL who rent out furnished properties do have contents insurance.

jay78

Tassotti wrote:

Who do you wan't compensation from? (Your subconcious for not insuring your own belongings)

This is harsh. I am not expecting to be compensated for the furniture just the consequential losses from having to abruptly move and find alternative accomodation.

dunstonh

I was talking from an insurance point of view. Contents insurance usually for OO has an option of accidental damage for extra money. This covers things like spilling stuff on the carpet, dropping the TV when moving it etc. I would have though that most LL who rent out furnished properties do have contents insurance.

Whilst it is possible for landlords to have some contents insurance, it is usually basic and only to cover their own items. Not those of the tenants. In my experience, landlords rarely cover contents in unfurnished properties as there is nothing worth insuring.

Contents insurance is the responsiblity of the tenant.

Whilst landlords face an ever increasing liability on a range of things, I do think that the landlord has no case to answer here and has no liability to you. Had you had contents insurance, you would now be claiming on that for alternative living accomodation whilst the property is being restored. It's a "harsh" way to find out your responsibilities of living away from your parrents