Burst pipe in my house - neighbour uninsured

MMLS

The only reason I'm not ignoring info from the family member - though I realise it can't help me at all - is that it's making me rather suspicious. Some of what I've heard is from the horses mouth though. Obviously what I'm writing here is guarded and there's lots more to it. I've been too trusting so far and really can't afford to continue this way. I'm being told sob story after sob story which one by one are turning out to be untrue and obviously from that, I'm now wondering what else is untrue or exaggerated at the least. The houses are very small, terraced ex local authority and what I've seen of the rest of the house, nice as it is, leads me to reason that the bed didn't cost them £1000.

What galls me is that I've told them that I will not turn my back on them and I will reimburse them for the damage (and have done so far) but as you say sonastin, it appears they want it better than before.

I wouldn't even consider not paying them for the carpet and bed Annisele. I always think how I'd react if the tables were turned - though knowing my luck I'd end up with nothing! Legally I'm liable in any case.

I think I shall do as you suggest olly300.

Thanks all.

MMLS

Good point Paul - I'll see if I can get a bit more info about the manufacturer. Yes, everything is in order with the builders quotes btw.

The AST includes a clause that states that the tenant agrees to give notice to the landlord or landlords agent if the property is to be vacant in excess of 28 consecutive days (he didn't and it was ) and to take adequate steps to protect it against of risk of frost damage by either draining down the water system and ensuring the stopcock is turned off or by providing adeaquate heating while the property is vacant (he did neither). If I'd have known he was away I could have prevented this but he didn't tell anyone. My solicitor seems to think this makes him liable for the damage but it's a moot point. He doesn't have any money.

yvonne13_2

WOW the OP is so honest. It's nice to know there are still descent people around.

sonastin

MMLS wrote: »

I wouldn't even consider not paying them for the carpet and bed Annisele. I always think how I'd react if the tables were turned - though knowing my luck I'd end up with nothing! Legally I'm liable in any case.

If I were you, I'd consider not paying them for the bed. Based on what you said, the water came from below and its unlikely to have damaged the bed. If they weren't trying to take you for a ride, I'd agree that the right thing to do is to pay up for even questionable claims. But now they are pushing their luck and trying to get one over on you, I'd switch off Mr Nice Guy. Make 'em prove they needed to chuck the bed out. By all means, pay something to put down new carpet for them, because that could have been spoiled but sure as heck not £40 / sq.m.

Its good to think how you'd react if the tables were turned, but think how you'd act if the tables were turned. If someone, through no fault of their own, accepted their responsibility for causing you a problem, would you be trying to scr*w them for every penny or be gracious enough to accept the best they can arrange for you -especially if you knew they couldn't actually afford what they were paying for? Given that they aren't doing what you would do, its time to stop worrying about how you would react.

Legally you are liable for the damage. You owe them nothing more than that. Don't be pushed into paying for more than was actually damaged.

Jowo_2

MMLS wrote: »

... Now they want £1000 for their bed which they threw outside, along with all the carpet ...[at] £40 a sq metres...

So they'll have receipts for this, then? I suppose if they are pros, they'll just mock up the paperwork anyway...

Have you received definitive expert advice that you are liable for the damage to their property or can you tell them to take the tenant to court if they aren't happy with what you are offering?

G_M

MMLS wrote: »

Thanks G_M. Your comments were really helpful. I've re-read and I do have third party liability.
It's a longer story than my post suggests and I think it may well end up with my solicitor sorting it all out for me unfortunately. (Nothing to do with my neighbour though.)

What I don't understand is why you are dealing with any of this?

Your insurance almost certainly covers 'escape of water' and/or 'water damage'.
Your insurance covers 3rd party liability.

Your neighbour (a 3rd party) is making a claim, you pass it to your insurers and they worry about how much it is right to pay her.

It is also then up to the insurer, having paid out, to decide whether to try to recoup their expenses by chasing the tenant who was ultimately responsible through failing to keep to the terms of the tenancy.

That's what landlord's insurance is all about.

MMLS

G_M wrote: »

That's what landlord's insurance is all about.

Except when the property hasn't been lived in for 40 consecutive days.

The tenant had been away from the house for weeks and told no-one. As he was paying his rent and the agents weren't due a check until later this month there was no reason to believe he was absent.

My solicitor has spoken to Legal and General and there's no way they'll pay out. Under the same clause they won't pay out 3rd party liability and the neighbour is uninsured.

simpywimpy

I think you are right to be wary of the neighbours intent MMLS.

Do you know where the water entered the neighbours home? Did it come down their internal walls? As you say, if it didnt come through a ceiling, how did it get onto the bed? At worst, it could have wet the headboard had it been against the wall.

Small claims are usually quite fair in my experience - and I have lost before now - but they are used to seeing people trying to pull a fast one too and would question how a bed can be soaked to the point of being ruined without water coming through a ceiling. Are you sure the bed was even against the wall adjoining your house?

olly300

simpywimpy wrote: »

Small claims are usually quite fair in my experience - and I have lost before now - but they are used to seeing people trying to pull a fast one too and would question how a bed can be soaked to the point of being ruined without water coming through a ceiling. Are you sure the bed was even against the wall adjoining your house?

Problem is the OP said the pipe burst in the attic of his house he lets. So the damage to the neighbouring property could be along the wall anywhere as well from the ceiling.

Unless the OP has pictures of the neighbour's damage or layout to show that the bed couldn't be damaged at all, to get it over with I would offer them a reasonable amount.

Also the neighbour is a liar it's very likely if it did go to court the neighbour would suddenly be able to find pictures of their damaged bed etc and receipts.

In short by offering them a reasonable amount they will get a new bed and carpet but they aren't going to get expensive ones they want. I just hope the OP is in a town where the local stores aren't very expensive.

G_M

MMLS wrote: »

Except when the property hasn't been lived in for 40 consecutive days.

The tenant had been away from the house for weeks and told no-one. As he was paying his rent and the agents weren't due a check until later this month there was no reason to believe he was absent.

My solicitor has spoken to Legal and General and there's no way they'll pay out. Under the same clause they won't pay out 3rd party liability and the neighbour is uninsured.

Ah! Sorry.
In that case it's time to a) get tough with the neighbour and question all the elements and costs of their claim and b) start procedings against the tenant.

Thread heading needs changing from 'Burst pipe in my house - neighbour uninsured' to 'Burst pipe in my house - I'm uninsured' !

A nasty lesson for all landlords: Your insurance may be invalid for reason totally beyond your control.

Edit: ps: just googled 'landlord insurance and looked at the 1st policy to come up. Simplelandlordinsurance. On the 3rd party liability section there is NO exclusion for unoccupied property. So it's clearly worth checking/shopping around.

pps - have now looked at L&G.
Ref water damage: this is excluded where

Loss or damage where:

i) the

home is unoccupied prior to the

commencement of the first tenancy; or

ii) the

home is left unoccupied between
lets; or

iii)

you or your agent are aware that the

home is unoccupied,

Were you aware??

Section 3 "Property Owners Liability to 3rd Parties" has NO exclusion relating to unoccupancy so I fail to see why they are refusing to pay out.

And anyway L&G's definition of unoccupancy is 90 days, not 40, in those sections where it does apply!

(mind you, a LL's policy that specifically excludes malicious damage by tenants would not be one I'd take out anyway!)