Neighbours Burst Pipe, I'm uninsured.

bris

The upstairs will have building insurance which will cover all third party losses. Make no mistake about it, I have had enough claims both for and against my insurers to know this.

withabix

There are some very wrong answers above.

The damage was caused by the flat above. The property is HA owned, hence their BUILDINGS INSURANCE will cover the damage to ANY of your property, as you are a THIRD PARTY.

Contact the housing association ASAP.

dacouch

bris wrote: »

The upstairs will have building insurance which will cover all third party losses. Make no mistake about it, I have had enough claims both for and against my insurers to know this.

The Insurance that you refer to will be Liability Insurance, which pays out claims that the policy holder is "Legally Liable for". You can check this in your own policy under the "Property Owners" and "Personal Liability" Sections. The Insurers will not pay a claim under the liability section of the policy unless they are legally liable (Under the civil law definition eg the policy holder acted "Negligently").

Just because there has been a leak does not neccessarily mean the flat above has acted negligently.

It is feasible that the person responsible for the flat above has acted negligently and thus is liable. They could have left a tap running all weekend, they could for example a washing machine that has had problems with leaking that they have ignored. However it should be noted that if you have a washing machine that is well serviced and develops a leak you are not generally liable for the damage it caused to the flat below provided you have stopped the leak when reasonably possible

As stated before just because the flat above has had a leak does not make them "Legally Liable". For the flat above to be legally liable they have to be proved to have been negligent. This is in effect that the actions of a reasonable person could have avoided the problem.

A good example of acting reasonably to avoid a claim and thus not be liable is how McDonald's run their toilet cleaning. If you go into a McDonalds toilet, you will see on the wall a rota which has the dates, times and name of cleaner stating when the toilet has been checked and cleaned (Typically every 30 minutes or so. Should a customer or member of staff slip on liquid on the and sue them for compensation. McDonalds would simply send in the completed form from that day (They keep them for years). This would in virtually all cases be sufficient to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent a slipping on liquid injury. This would be sufficient evidence (In virtually all cases) should it actually make it to court for the judge to rule in McDonalds favour.

G_M

Surely washing the floor every 30 minutes means it is almost permenantly damp......?? :huh:

(rhetorical question)

geri1965_2

G_M wrote: »

Surely washing the floor every 30 minutes means it is almost permenantly damp......?? :huh:

(rhetorical question)

He said checked and cleaned, not washed.

dacouch

G_M wrote: »

Surely washing the floor every 30 minutes means it is almost permenantly damp......?? :huh:

(rhetorical question)

As in checked for any spilt liquids and taking appropriate action eg cleaning them up and leaving a warning sign about potential slip hazard if appropriate

macman

dacouch wrote: »

As in checked for any spilt liquids and taking appropriate action eg cleaning them up and leaving a warning sign about potential slip hazard if appropriate

And not forgetting to ask if they want fries with it?:D

Torry_Quine

withabix wrote: »

There are some very wrong answers above.

The damage was caused by the flat above. The property is HA owned, hence their BUILDINGS INSURANCE will cover the damage to ANY of your property, as you are a THIRD PARTY.

Contact the housing association ASAP.

Not necessarily so. Someone I know had a flood from above and it was caused by a leaking radiator. However it was properly maintained and serviced so not at fault and she had to claim from her own insurance. They did not counter claim from upstairs as it was deemed to be no fault of theirs.

Meatballs

You may need negligence to convince a court to payout but insurers often don't take it all the way to court to avoid those costs.

Take examples of a rear end shunt causing another car to hit the back of another. The middle car isn't negligent but the car infront claims from the car in the middle who inturn claims from the end car?

dacouch

Meatballs wrote: »

You may need negligence to convince a court to payout but insurers often don't take it all the way to court to avoid those costs.

Take examples of a rear end shunt causing another car to hit the back of another. The middle car isn't negligent but the car infront claims from the car in the middle who inturn claims from the end car?

Car accidents come under the RTA.

Your example is not 100% accurate as the first car would claim for the damage caused to it by the second car and any subsequent damage caused by the impact from car three , the second car would claim from the third car for damage caused by the second car

An example of a claim that would not be paid out by a car insurer would be if a driver had a heart attack and hit another car. If there is no history of previous heart problems / symptons and the driver had not felt unwell they would not pay the third parties claim. If however driver had a history of heart problems and or was feeling unwell prior to the accident and / they had not been taking their medication they would generally pay the claim.

Insurers will only pay out under Property Liability Claims for what they are legally liable for.