what does prudent uninsured mean?

Mrs_pbradley936

huckster wrote: »

They will find it difficult claiming for liability. If they caused their own injury by knocking the radiator off the wall, then their injury was caused by their own carelessness.

Has this got anywhere near a court yet ? If not, I don't think the tenants Solicitors will bother, unless the tenant is paying them. If it is being done on legal expenses cover or no win no fee, then I doubt it would ever see a court room. Your Solicitors just tells them that they have not establised that you their client has any liability for what has happened and would counter that the tenant has caused them a loss e.g the damage to the radiator, cost of reinstalling it. Your Solicitors could threaten to counter claim for the damage caused by the tenant.

If you were allowed to let the flat under the terms of the lease and the Buildings Insurance covered the flat whilst it was being let, then you should be using the liability insurance under that policy.
Obviously at the moment the freeholder does not want this to be used, as no liability has been establised. There is no reason why you could not contact the Buildings Insurers directly to register the situation with them.

It is the block Buildings Insurance that is relevant, as you were not occupying the property. It can become a bit of a grey area, because block Building Insurances tend to cover all walls, roofs, ceilings i.e the actual structure or things that form part of the structure of the block of flats. They won't normally cover kitchens or bathrooms or central heating boilers/radiators in flats. What some people do is to have Contents Insurance extended to cover all the things in a flat which are not covered by the block Buildings Insurance. You could have taken out landlords Contents Insurance to cover the things in the flat, that were not included in the Buildings Insurance.

A relative of mine lived in a block of flats, where they shared the freehold under a management arrangement. One of the flatowners had a subsidence issue caused by a tree. When the repair to the building was done, there was an argument about a kitchen having to be refitted. The flat owner had not included the kitchen within their Contents Insurance and the Buildings insurance did not cover a kitchen within the flat. In the end the Buildings Insurance paid out and included it as part of the subsidence claim. But there were arguments for awhile about who was paying.

No not been to a court yet. I am in the middle of composing a "response to claims letter". It is being conducted as a "no win no fee" basis from the tenant.


I am composing my own letter because solicitor wants to keep my costs down, If he writes the letter he will have to bill me but if I write it with a few pointers in the right direction from him it will keep the costs minimal. He has already told me that if this becomes protracted then the FOS need to get involved.

huckster

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

No not been to a court yet. I am in the middle of composing a "response to claims letter". It is being conducted as a "no win no fee" basis from the tenant.


I am composing my own letter because solicitor wants to keep my costs down, If he writes the letter he will have to bill me but if I write it with a few pointers in the right direction from him it will keep the costs minimal. He has already told me that if this becomes protracted then the FOS need to get involved.

If that is the case, just keep the letter very basic and to the point. The more you say, the more they can respond to or there is more chance of it being misunderstood. This is why Solicitors letter are often quite short, not because they are being lazy.

Your letter could just say that you deny any liability for what has happened and that you may look into pursuing a claim against the tenant for carelessly damaging your property.