Our builder damaged water authority sewer pipe

stevecon99

Can the water authority hold me liable because a builder we had working for us, damaged a sewage pipe, that the water authority was responsible for and later repaired. Or should they instead hold the builder liable and try to retrieve theirs cost from him or his insurance.

Thanks

PasturesNew

They will chase you as it's within your responsibility to ensure it's not wrecked.
You employed a builder, so you then have to chase him as it's his responsibility to ensure he doesn't wreck stuff while on your premises.

So, you might have to pay .... but the builder should cover that cost and pay you. Obviously there's potential there for delays, short-term financial hardship for you -and suffering.... or, the builder might simply put in an insurance claim and pay up as he knows he did wrong and he has a responsibility. That's what his professional insurances are for and, as a business person, he has to take this stuff on the chin and be more careful next time.

Furts

In effect your water and drainage contracts are with your Water Authority. For the Water Authority to meet this contract the services must not be damaged. You have a Duty Of Care, or implied duty, to look after what is on your land. The Water Authority will come after you because they have no idea who your builder was, nor what they were doing, nor why the damage occurred. All this was under your control, and not that of the Water Authority.

The upshot is that any consumer having building work undertaken should have arranged with their insurance company, or broker, for cover for the building works.

If you have no cover the works can cost a substantial sum, and there is typically an element of excessive charging, or punitive charging - depending on how you look at this.

You may get the costs back from your builder - but this may be a battle. Do not be surprised if your builder does a runner or is not co-operative.

stevecon99

Many Thanks for your replies.

kazzamoran

the builder should have public liability insurance

srm1

IMHO,
I think the post by Furts is the most correct.

Imagine if you will, my neighbour employing a cowboy builder who was trading as limited company and the only limited thing about him was his ability. - The company did not exist.
The works conducted by cowboy #1 have caused considerable damage to my property and the works still have to be demolished and rebuilt.
Still he did have a liability insurance so what could possibly go wrong?
6 years ago, the very first thing the loss adjuster acting for the builders insurance company declaired was that all damage was the responsibility of the building owner. So there appears very little point of a builder having any insurance whatsoever.
This matter has been in court for 3.5 years, so you can only imagine the costs involved. I have never experienced this level of lies and deceipt from a insurance company before, they appear to be masters of it.

Furts

kazzamoran wrote: »

the builder should have public liability insurance

The key word is "should". Compound this by asking how many consumers ask to see evidence of this. Of those that do, how many verify the authenticity? Then of this small number how many scrutinise the excess?

If the builder is deemed risky to the insurance company, or has done such things before, the excess can be considerable. Indeed it may not be worth pursuing a claim in such instances. The flip side to this is if the builder is risky, or has done this before, there may be no cover in place because the premiums are too expensive.

The onus is on the consumer to be savvy in all such cases. Hence my comment about the consumer taking out insurance to cover all such eventualities - it does not cost very much.