repossessed neighbours house

liamnick

Our house was recently flooded by our neighbours house which has been repossessed by the mortgage company. The water tank burst in the cold weather and managed to come through our house in to the hallway,kitchen and front room. I have had to pay out the excess on our insurance and getting the work done. Can we claim back of the repossessed house mortgage company? The house has been empty for more than a year and it will probably start to smell next door soon.
any advice please?
liam[/SIZE]

bengalknights

Yes you can pursue this through your insurerss to chase them for it, as that is why you pay them.

eddddy

To be successful in a claim, you would have to show that the mortgage company was negligent.

Did the tank burst because of the cold weather?

You could try arguing that it was negligent to leave a house empty and unheated (especially when exceptionally cold weather was forecast) - without draining down the water tank.

MalMonroe

Yes, liamnick said it was because of the cold, and so the mortgage company should definitely be liable.

Blibble

bengalknights wrote: »

Yes you can pursue this through your insurerss to chase them for it, as that is why you pay them.

MalMonroe wrote: »

Yes, liamnick said it was because of the cold, and so the mortgage company should definitely be liable.

No. How is the cold the result of the mortgage lender's negligence?

An insurable event (escape of water) occurred to your property. You are insured for this. You are not insured for your excess fee, and this could only be recovered from a third party if a reasonable party taking reasonable precautions could have foreseen the issue arising? If you can prove that the mortgage lender was negligent as per this definition in any way, then best of luck to you, however I think it would be trickier than it first seems.

maisie_cat

If the bank concerned also sells insurance, see what the terms say about leaving a property empty long term.

bertiewhite

MalMonroe wrote: »

Yes, liamnick said it was because of the cold

Not quite....

liamnick wrote: »

The water tank burst in the cold weather

Sorry, pedant alert.

moneyistooshorttomention

I would have thought any risk reasonably foreseeable by a decent surveyor (note I said "decent":cool:) is one that the mortgage company should have foreseen.

When I bought my current house - it had been empty for a few months - but the (not so decent:cool:) surveyor I had said that the water tank needed to be switched off and drained in order to prevent any possible problems. Hence I duly "asked" the vendor to do so - and it was.

eddddy

Blibble wrote: »

No. How is the cold the result of the mortgage lender's negligence?

You're getting confused.

Very cold weather was forecast. The mortgage company were responsible for an empty, unheated property.

In those circumstances, a reasonable person would have drained the water system and water tank. i.e. it was negligent not to drain it.

(In fact, when properties are repossessed, mortgage companies almost always drain water systems - for this kind of reason. I suspect that somebody 'slipped up')

Any insurance company, surveyor, estate agent or other property professional would advise draining the tank in those circumstances.

Blibble

eddddy wrote: »

You're getting confused.

Very cold weather was forecast. The mortgage company were responsible for an empty, unheated property.

In those circumstances, a reasonable person would have drained the water system and water tank. i.e. it was negligent not to drain it.

(In fact, when properties are repossessed, mortgage companies almost always drain water systems - for this kind of reason. I suspect that somebody 'slipped up')

Any insurance company, surveyor, estate agent or other property professional would advise draining the tank in those circumstances.

I agree that the tank should have been drained, my point was more trying to suggest that it would be very difficult and laboursome to prove negligence. Perhaps "how is the cold weather the result of the mortgage lender's negligence" was a tad flippant.

TrickyDicky101

Blibble wrote: »

I agree that the tank should have been drained, my point was more trying to suggest that it would be very difficult and laboursome to prove negligence. Perhaps "how is the cold weather the result of the mortgage lender's negligence" was a tad flippant.

I agree - it may be a good idea that draining the tank would reduce risk in the event of a freeze but to suggest negligence is too strong and there is no certainty that court action on that basis would succeed.