Next door's chimney ruined my house

project_c

Need some advice on the following:
We live in a small victorian terrace. We were having a kitchen fitted, but all work had to be put on hold when the old units were removed, because a huge amount of damp was found on the joining wall. The wall is actually wet to the touch.

The problem has been traced to next door's chimney. They removed their chimney breast many years ago, but left the chimney uncapped, so water has been leaking into my walls from their chimney flue for a very long time. Our entire wall is damp, as is our downstairs underfloor area due to ingress from their chimney. We have to move out of the house to allow for a proper investigation to be carried out, and to allow building works to begin.

My buildings insurance does not cover this, and my solicitor advised me that it's not worth going to court over, because the neighbour was not intentionally negligent. I am not sure if the current owner (a landlord) was responsible for the removal of the chimney breast, or whether whoever removed the chimney breast even had proper permission to remove it.

The way I see it, the neighbour should contribute to my repair costs, which are likely to be significant. Do I have any legal rights here? Or do I just have to swallow the whole cost, even though their property caused the problem?

Grenage

What exactly is the damage?

Davesnave

Why are you asking us random folk on the Forum these questions when your solicitor has already advised you that it's unlikely you could prove negligence?

The 'way you see it' is irrelevant if there is no case against the neighbour and no clear evidence that they undertook the chimney modifications. It seems an unlikely thing for a buy-to-let landlord to do, if that's what they are.

There could even be a counter argument that if the wall is so bad, you were negligent in not dealing with it sooner. I'm not suggesting that this is the case at all, just pointing out possible difficulties if you lay blame at someone else's door.

project_c

Grenage wrote: »

What exactly is the damage?

The entire kitchen side length of the party wall, including the chimney breast is soaking wet, so wet that the surveyor said it's damage that's constantly being added to whenever it rains. My only option is to get builders in to take off plaster and expose all the brickwork, and allow it to dry out. Meanwhile I have no kitchen. Next door is getting their chimney fixed sometime next week. My side of the chimney was fixed years ago.

project_c

Davesnave wrote: »

Why are you asking us random folk on the Forum these questions when your solicitor has already advised you that it's unlikely you could prove negligence?

The 'way you see it' is irrelevant if there is no case against the neighbour and no clear evidence that they undertook the chimney modifications. It seems an unlikely thing for a buy-to-let landlord to do, if that's what they are.

There could even be a counter argument that if the wall is so bad, you were negligent in not dealing with it sooner. I'm not suggesting that this is the case at all, just pointing out possible difficulties if you lay blame at someone else's door.

Well, I ensured my chimney was in 100% perfect condition 2 years ago as soon as I moved in here.

There is clear evidence the neighbours modified their chimney, because I went next door and had a look, and there is no chimney breast there, and there's a load of water leaking into their house. I just don't know if it was the current or previous owner that did the removal.

Surely it doesn't matter whether they were negligent or not? Their property has damaged mine, is that not their responsibility? I can't see how that's my fault and why I should have to pay for all the repairs. I understand I may have no legal grounds for litigation, but their chimney is in a complete state, and it's destroyed half my house.

It's a bit like running someone over because your brakes aren't working, and your car hasn't had a service in 15 years, and then saying "it's not my problem, nobody told me the brakes weren't working". If that happened, you'd go to jail for negligence (and manslaughter).

If I have no case here, the law is pretty stupid, or just really unfair at best.

Grenage

That's not too bad, your financial costs should be minimal, although I agree it's quite an inconvenience. It has not destroyed half your house, it has made a wall quite wet.

I would suck this up and make do as best you can. Unless you can prove blatant negligence, your effort is very unlikely to be met by suitable recompense.

Aylesbury_Duck

project_c wrote: »

It's a bit like running someone over because your brakes aren't working, and your car hasn't had a service in 15 years, and then saying "it's not my problem, nobody told me the brakes weren't working".

It really isn't.

Why won't your own insurance cover it? What have they said?

Carrot007

project_c wrote: »

Surely it doesn't matter whether they were negligent or not? Their property has damaged mine, is that not their responsibility? I can't see how that's my fault and why I should have to pay for all the repairs. I understand I may have no legal grounds for litigation, but their chimney is in a complete state, and it's destroyed half my house.

THat's just how it works with housing. If they knew about the problem and did nothing they would be negligent. You don't even know if they did this so it would be hard to prove.

project_c wrote: »

It's a bit like running someone over because your brakes aren't working, and your car hasn't had a service in 15 years, and then saying "it's not my problem, nobody told me the brakes weren't working". If that happened, you'd go to jail for negligence (and manslaughter).

No it's nothing like it. Brake's are an MOT chekc and there is a legal requirement for that so there would be negligance. Though not servicing in 15 years the lack of oil change would have stopped the car working much sooner!

Carrot007

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Why won't your own insurance cover it? What have they said?

This!

Yes why won't your buildings insurance cover it. Surely this is what is is for, issues where there is noone to blame.

Doozergirl

If the problem was your neighbour's then your insurance should claim from their insurance. It wouldn't be covered by your own insurance but they should work for you and then reclaim it from next door.

I've never had to claim but I've had two friends flooded by neighbouring property and that's what happened then. I appreciate that those were an escape of water which I'm sure their neighbour's insurance would have covered. I can certainly imagine that your neighbours won't be covered for negligence, but I thought they all carried some degree of public liability...

Perhaps you can do it small claims route?

Who is doing the 'investigating' for you?

project_c

Grenage wrote: »

That's not too bad, your financial costs should be minimal, although I agree it's quite an inconvenience. It has not destroyed half your house, it has made a wall quite wet.

I would suck this up and make do as best you can. Unless you can prove blatant negligence, your effort is very unlikely to be met by suitable recompense.

Yes, I was possibly being a little over-dramatic about the state of the house, but in all fairness we have been living here for 2 weeks now without a kitchen. The room which used to be the kitchen is a stinking damp building site with pipes sticking out of the wall and slugs crawling around, it's testing my patience somewhat. Add that to the expense of having to move out, AND having to deal with the incredible incompetency of letting agents, and it's enough to fray anyone's nerves..

(Moving out is not 100% essential, but our floors will have to come up, and our wall is going to get opened up, and there are slugs everywhere, and I am starting a new job in about 2 weeks, and I really don't want to turn up on my first day covered in slugs and smelling of damp).

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

It really isn't.

Why won't your own insurance cover it? What have they said?

Carrot007 wrote: »

This!

Yes why won't your buildings insurance cover it. Surely this is what is is for, issues where there is noone to blame.

Buildings insurance was my first port of call. They apparently cover damp caused by leaking pipes or weather damage, but not chimneys. Why? I honestly have no idea why.

I'll need to read the smallprint to make sure they're not just trying to get rid of me. My insurance is with Allianz, for anyone wanting to insure with them, beware. (Although I don't know if any others are any different).

Doozergirl wrote: »

If the problem was your neighbour's then your insurance should claim from their insurance. It wouldn't be covered by your own insurance but they should work for you and then reclaim it from next door.

I've never had to claim but I've had two friends flooded by neighbouring property and that's what happened then. I appreciate that those were an escape of water which I'm sure their neighbour's insurance would have covered. I can certainly imagine that your neighbours won't be covered for negligence, but I thought they all carried some degree of public liability...

Perhaps you can do it small claims route?

Who is doing the 'investigating' for you?

Yes, sadly the 'escape of water' is key, according to my insurers anyway. If it had been caused by plumbing, no problem. But a chimney which hasn't been touched since 1893 does not count for some reason..

The investigation is being carried out by a chartered surveyor, who is being very helpful so far.

Small claims is a good idea and may be my only option if the neighbour does not feel like contributing to my costs. I'm assuming they will say 'no thank you' when I ask them for money, but I'll obviously try that first.