Insurer won't pay, may lose house.

One_Five_Four

My wife thinks it was simply from searching the internet (obviously not the best way...), possibly from the Citizens' Advice website, but as far as we're aware, it didn't come from the solicitors he used. They seemed to delight in writing basic letters to the Ombudsman for him and charging him £300 a time to do so. (But I mustn't go there at present as my blood pressure is high enough already.)

The problem is, if he spends more on the solicitors from the money he has remaining, all of which he's already offered to the insurers, he obviously won't be able to use it to pay off the debt.

Bit of a Catch 22 I'm afraid.

Quentin

It's not catch 22 if he ends up keeping the house!

It won't cost a fortune to get proper advice (especially compared to the downside of losing the house).

One_Five_Four

That's quite true. We'll have to look into this ASAP.

Thanks very much for all your help today.

I will of course keep you posted.

vaio

One_Five_Four wrote: »

Thanks once more. There isn't a charge on it as far as I'm aware, so does he still have the chance to do that, even though it will clearly be to avoid a debt? We were under the impression it was not possible to do this.

I'm sure that divesting yourself of assets to avoid a debt will get reversed when discovered and will certainly reflect badly on anyone involved.

I'd suggest getting real legal advice before doing anything

One_Five_Four

vaio wrote: »

I'm sure that divesting yourself of assets to avoid a debt will get reversed when discovered and will certainly reflect badly on anyone involved.

I'd suggest getting real legal advice before doing anything

Thanks, yes I agree with you there, and one thing there is absolutely no intention to do on his part is anything illegal. All he wants is to get this millstone from round his neck.

As to spending more on legal advice, the idea hurts rather a lot as £25,000 of legal 'advice' later, we're in the current situation.

spacey2012

I would say for £25,000 in Solicitors costs the insurance company should have been up in the dock defending a high court case, not writing letters to the FOS, they are only a guidelines organisation.
The battle is not over, judges do not like dodging insurance companies who hide behind schedules.
The mindset often is you take the risks that come with taking peoples money in insurance.
The outcome of the FOS, or FSA or what ever they are called this week was a dead cert, so a waste of time IMO other than the standard letters.
You need to dump this Solicitor and his £300 letters to the FOS and get someone who has half a clue what they are doing in getting them in to a courtroom with the contract and a Judge.

with the house and assets, start researching forming a trust to move the assets..

my_names_dave

Which insurer did he have is public liability with, and what were the reasons for the FOS siding with the insurer?

dacouch

my_names_dave wrote: »

Which insurer did he have is public liability with, and what were the reasons for the FOS siding with the insurer?

Not abiding by three of the Insurers requirements for heat use

One_Five_Four

Thanks Spacey, there's a lot for us to consider there.

Dave, the insurer was MMA. The Ombudsman sided with them because (transcribed into my words):

1. His fire extinguisher wasn't at the site of the work up on the flat roof for immediate use (although it was on the ground nearby and he had got two buckets of water on the roof).

2. He hadn't taken suitable precautions to shield combustible materials in the main roof.

The trouble was, as I understand it, the fire broke out some distance from where he was working and had invisibly travelled along in the void below the roof surface before appearing, already well alight. Frankly, nothing would have put it out by that stage.

The bottom line is it WAS an accident. He's worked safely for years doing similar work and didn't realise what was happening until it was too late.

Sorry, yes, it looks like it was only two of the conditions he'd failed to comply with.

ic

One_Five_Four wrote: »

1. His fire extinguisher wasn't at the site of the work up on the flat roof for immediate use (although it was on the ground nearby and he had got two buckets of water on the roof).

A fire extinguisher allows the water to be directed accurately under pressure to where the fire is, buckets do not. It isn't merely about the quantity of water.

2. He hadn't taken suitable precautions to shield combustible materials in the main roof.

The trouble was, as I understand it, the fire broke out some distance from where he was working and had invisibly travelled along in the void below the roof surface before appearing, already well alight. Frankly, nothing would have put it out by that stage.

Nothing, except perhaps a fire extinguisher. Had the precautions been taken with shielding the combustible material, then the fire wouldn't have happened.

The bottom line is it WAS an accident.

Caused through negligence.

He's worked safely for years doing similar work and didn't realise what was happening until it was too late.

Maybe he was just lucky all that time - the way he worked meant it was an accident waiting to happen?