Neighbours Burst Pipe, I'm uninsured.

kkebay

This is absolute codswallop about all this upstairs may not be liable for this or that, they are.

themull1

The upstairs flat is liable for all the damage to your flat - lets hope they have insurance.....

ILW

There is no legal requirement for a property to have third party insurance.

dacouch

kkebay wrote: »

This is absolute codswallop about all this upstairs may not be liable for this or that, they are.

Have a look in your Home Insurance Policy, there will be a telephone number in there for free legal advice. Give them a ring, tell them the flat above has leaked into your flat and ask them if they would automatically be liable. They will explain to you how it works.

Telling the OP they will be able to claim when it is possible they will have no claim against anyone else is not doing the OP any favours

themull1

dacouch wrote: »

Have a look in your Home Insurance Policy, there will be a telephone number in there for free legal advice. Give them a ring, tell them the flat above has leaked into your flat and ask them if they would automatically be liable. They will explain to you how it works.

Telling the OP they will be able to claim when it is possible they will have no claim against anyone else is not doing the OP any favours

they haven't got a policy.

dacouch

themull1 wrote: »

they haven't got a policy.

I'm talking about all of the people who are posting stating categorically that the flat above is liable for the damage to the OP's property.

Most of you will find you have the legal advice, it's provided by someone separate to your Home Insurer so they won't know whose ringing. You could even give a false name if your worried. You will find that most of the helplines are open 24 hours so you could try ringing them now.

kkebay

The upstairs will have building insurance which will cover all third party losses.

dippy

dacouch wrote: »

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.

Surely, this is 100% not right either. Third party car insurance is obligatory by law so that any damage to third parties can be compensated.

Whether or not the insurer knew about any condition does not matter one iota.

dacouch

dippy wrote: »

Surely, this is 100% not right either. Third party car insurance is obligatory by law so that any damage to third parties can be compensated.

Whether or not the insurer knew about any condition does not matter one iota.

Every year a small number of people are injured in road traffic accidents where liability cannot be established and a defence of automatism or involuntary action is used by the defendant. The victim is left injured, with no compensation to ameliorate the situation. It is because of such a case in my constituency that I have been moved to act on this issue and seek to introduce this Bill. In 2004, my constituent Mr Rajendra Vanker, a research chemist, was seriously injured when he was hit by another car whilst he was helping his father load boxes into his car. The driver of the car had suffered a heart attack prior to the car's impact
on my constituent. The driver died later in hospital. My constituent was left unable to walk unaided and in considerable pain and was unable to return to work and his career in the chemical industry. Four years on, he has not received any compensation for the injuries he suffered and is still receiving medical attention,despite the fact he played no part in the accident and is an innocent party. The deceased's insurers, Halifax Insurance, have refused to pay out anycompensation, citing the defence of automatism because the deceased was unconscious at the time of impact and is therefore not liable for his actions. Halifax
Insurance says that because the deceased cannot be said to be negligent, as he was not suffering previously from cardiovascular disease, and could not have known he would suffer a heart attack, then they are not liable for any compensation claimfor injuries sustained by Mr Vanker.


Where the defence of automatism is being cited by an insurer, to avoid paying compensation, the case must ultimately be tested in the courts. Naturally my constituent sought legal advice and received various expert's opinions that, even if his case came to court, he was extremely unlikely to succeed. This left my constituent in a difficult position. He is not a wealthy man, particularly as he has not been able to work since the accident, and he felt unable to take the risk of a court case he was advised he was unlikely to win.

In the 1970's, attempts were made to change the law surrounding compensation to ensure that those injured where liability could not be established could receive some compensation through their insurance company. Campaigning on this issue culminated in the Pearson Commission, which reported in 1978. The Commission made some fairly radical proposals and recommended that the traditional tort law
applicable in this area be replaced by no-fault insurance and strict liability.Disappointingly, neither the Government of the day, nor successive Governments have been receptive to the proposals made, and the Commission's recommendations have fallen by the wayside.

http://www.brianiddon.org.uk/speeches/20081119_RoadTrafficAccidentCompensationBill.pdf

(g) Involuntary Act - A Defendant may escape liability if the accident results from a medical condition of which he/she could not reasonably be expected to be aware. This might be having a sudden heart attack whilst at the wheel causing loss of control - no history of pre-existing cardiac condition and no hint of illness leading up to the onset of the attack. This defence is known as automatism

http://www.claims4nofee.co.uk/guide/accidents--fault-guide-2.html

Accidents caused by sudden illness
If an accident occurs because a driver has become ill, for example, through a stroke or heart attack, they will not be prosecuted for the way they were driving. However, in some circumstances they could be liable to pay compensation. This may be covered by their insurance

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/travel/traffic_accidents.htm

System

There is going off topic and there is the novella written above.

What this has to do with a water leak in an upstairs flat has got me stumped.