Another drain problem...:(

crystaltips_68

Hi,
I bought my current property last Nov, and have had several blockages since. Dynorod came and did the camera trick (pitch -fibre pipes), then tried to claim on my house insurance, which they said would be possible. The Insurance co have turned down the claim as thay say that the damage happened well before i moved in. Dynorod say to contact the previous owner and see if they would be happy to claim on their previous insurance. I have contacted their solicitor and am awaiting a reply. Are they obliged, in any way, to claim for the repair? Is there anything else i can do? It's 4.1k worth of repairs, and yes, i know its my own fault for not camera-ing the drains before i moved in.

WestonDave

I think your hopes are pretty thin.

Unless you specifically asked the previous owners to certify the drains were OK, they did so and now you've found a problem, you have no claim against them. They therefore have no obligation to contact their insurers, and even if they do, because you have no claim against the prior owners, they are not going to incur a loss, and as such there is no claim for them to make against their insurance. To put it another way, there is no reason the previous insurers should pay for something which will be of no benefit to their customer who has moved out.

Sorry that probably isn't what you want to hear.

phill99

Sorry WestonDave, but there are arrors in what you say.

To put it another way, there is no reason the previous insurers should pay for something which will be of no benefit to their customer who has moved out.

This is not the case. It is nothing to do with the case in hand. Insurance is not about 'benefitting customers'. It is about a contract being in place and a legal obligation. If it can be proved that damage has occured while the prevoius insurer had a policy in place, then the previous insurer will have a liability. The liability does not end once the policy has ended. However, there lies the issue: you cannot prove that the damage occured while the previous owners were in occupation. They could easily say that the drains were fine all the time they owned the property and the damage occured since the new owners moved in. There is no way on earth that you could prove that the previous owners were responsible. Any lawyer will tell you the same.

crystaltips_68

Thanks Dave and Phil.

Phil, I have only lived in the property for 3 months, the pitch-fibre pipes are down to 40% of their size, and the previous owners lived here for years and years. Dynorod say there is no way it could have happened in 3 months. However, the previous residents weren't always the owners, they sold the property to an equity release co, so this creates another problem:(.

phill99

But are Dynorod willing to stand up in Court and say this?

Also, there is another issue, why should this be covered under insurance? Have the drains been damaged by flood, fire, Act of God etc? the Insurance company will simply put this down to fair wear and tear unless there was specifically an insurance in place that covered this.

A tenet of the English Land Law, particularly in terms of conveyancing is 'Caveat Emptor' or 'Buyer Beware'. Therefore it is up to the purchaser to satisfy themselves as to the servicability of the property which is why people are encouiraged to have surveys, electrical inspections etc. If the vendors sold in good faith and are happy to testify in Court that they never had a problem with their drains, then unfortunately, as harsh as it is, it is your problem.

crystaltips_68

Pitch-fibre pipes are covered on my insurance, that isnt the issue. Proving liability is the issue. They previous owners may not have had a problem as there were only 2 residents, one of whom wore nappies (TMI, sorry).

phill99

Read This http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/pitch-fibre-pipes.html#1

I wasn't aware that pitch fibre pipes were such an issue, but the insurance industry has been well aware of the problems for a long time.

You may well have a case, and you may well have a case against the previous policy holders. You may want to seek legal advice though.

crystaltips_68

Yes, i will seek legal advice, thanks. :beer:

ormus

sorry phil99 but youre wrong too.
the house insurance contract is between the previous owners & their insurers.
nothing to do with the new owners.
and the other problem is that no house insurance will cover wear & tear anyways.
the chances of anyone paying out is precisely zero.

WestonDave

Phil - my last comment was a sloppy paraphrase to help illustrate the practical situation.

You are correct that insurance is not about being of benefit, but it is about risks, and there is no risk issue between the insured and the insurer once the insured has moved out and no longer has any liability. There is also no duty of care or any form of contract from that prior insurer and the current owner - in other words there is absolutely no reason why the previous owners insurers shouldn't just put any correspondance in the bin.

What in effect has happened is that the property went on the market with defects that were there to be discovered but the right checks weren't done (easily done), and in the same way that you can't go back later and insist the electrics are updated, or the boiler replaced when it breaks down, I'm afraid in this case you are better off spending the money on the drains than seeking legal advice unless you can get a free half hour somewhere.

phill99

Sorry ormus but there is an error. You are right in so far that the contract is between the previous owner and their insurers. However, the liability of the insurance company doesnot end once the policy has finished. If it can be proved that damaged occured while the previous insurance was in place, then that insurance company will have a liability.

This situation also occurs when a home owner changes insurance company. For instance, a home owner maybe insured with Abbey up to 31 December 2009 and with Zurich from 01 January 2010. If damage to a property occured on 30 December 2009 but isn't discovered until 02 January 2010, then ABBEY are liable, not Zurich. I have dealt with this very issue in my working environment.

This is no different when a house is sold. The 'outgoing' insurance company still retains liability even if, some years later, a fault is discovered that occured during the time that cover was in place with them.

This also is exemplified by Employers Liabailty Insurance. Employers must retain details of their Employers liability Insurance for a period of 40 years. This is so that if it is proved that, for instance, an employee contracted an industrial disease in 2005 and was caused by employers negligence, the insurer who provided the policy in 2005 is the one that is liable.

You are right insofar that the contract is between the insurer and the home owner, but the liability doesn't end for the insurer.

The issue with pitch fibre pipes is also a complex one and I would refer you to the link above.