Excess liability

Sandtree

I think you are possibly confused by the what has happened... you collectively buy insurance on the building between you, the other owners and the factoring company... even if you are not joint policyholders you are joint beneficiaries to the policy.

The claim that has been been made is a claim against your own buildings insurance and therefore you have to pay the excess that was agreed to be paid when you make a claim. You could have bought a policy with a nil excess in which case there would be nothing to pay now but every years' premiums would have been higher.

From the insurers perspective there are three parties involved, you and the factor as the beneficiaries of the policy and the tenant of the other flat. An insurer won't recover money from their own beneficiaries unless there has been fraud or a material breach of the policy terms which therefore only leaves them with the tenant but in your own words:

finlayjay said:

 it was not her fault or intentional damage

So from the insurance company's view they have done what their contract with you requires which includes deducting the agreed excess and so job done.

Outside of the insurance then you are left with a £350 loss, you can attempt to recover that money from someone else and the obvious two candidates are either the factoring company or the tenant... you don't have the same relationship with the factoring company as the insurance company so they can be on the table for you whereas they were off the table for the insurer.

Just as you say of the tenant "its not her fault or intentional damage" for you to get your £350 back from the factoring company you have to be able to prove it was the factoring companies fault or their intentional damage. This often isnt the case unless you can show that there has been an ongoing set of problems that you had already warned them about and they'd had reasonable time to fix but had failed to do so. Most burst pipes are just bad luck and thats why we buy insurance. 

It may certainly be worth considering collectively with the other owners/factoring company if in the future a zero excess policy is a better option even if it means higher premiums each year.

davidmcn

finlayjay said:

If I flood the property below me owned by the same  building group as owns above then the irony is going to be, with your reading of the situation, I wouldn't be a penny out of pocket and would expect to pay nothing as it was "unforeseen".

That's correct. If you live below somebody else then you take the risk of gravity happening. I don't know whether you can get your own insurance if £350 is too big an excess for you to deal with - stand-alone buildings insurance is generally pretty cheap, though you'll be duplicating costs as you'd still be paying for the block policy too.

eddddy

In simple terms...

• Your flat flooded - but it was nobody's fault
• If a tree blew over in a storm and crashed through your window - it would (probably) be nobody's fault
• If your flat was struck by lightning and caught fire - it would be nobody's fault

So if you had no insurance, you would have to pay for all the damage caused by any of those things.

Fortunately, there is an insurance policy that probably covers damage caused by all those things (and other things as well), but it doesn't cover the full cost - you have to pay the first £350.

(Having an excess makes the insurance cheaper, and it stops people making lots of trivial claims for small amounts.)



But if damage to your flat was somebody else's fault - then you can claim the cost of the damage from them - if you know who they are, and they have the money to pay you.

So, for example, if a burglar kicks in your front door resulting in £500 damage to the door and frame - you can claim that £500 from the burglar, if you know who they are and they have money.

Otherwise, you can claim on your insurance - but once again there will probably be the same £350 excess.

finlayjay

Thanks Eddy. Everything you say makes sense, even more so if I am claiming on My Insurance policy, I am Not, not claiming on my policy, not triggering my excess. As far as I am concerned irrespect of who is liable or not, it should not cost me a penny. The hassle and grief as we all have experienced with these things is enough without the icing on the cake being that will be £350 please. So what do you do if builder wants x amount (accepted quote) and you can't pay the £350 "Shortfall" ask them to replace two  thirds of the roof and I will get you to do the rest when I save up?  My logic (which is blatantly stupid) is I wake up to find bathroom flooded and it have it in my mind as it not my fault, not my insurance being claimed that somehow (obviously unfounded) i won't have to beg borrow or steal 25% of the cost to put it right, and yes have it to look forward too again and again based purely on "gravity". Not even going to think too much into factor being owner of source house , organiser of repair team, organiser of arranging insurance cover in the first place, talk about conflict of interest when it comes down to "original cause". Thanks to all who have taken time to "explain" how it works and I am being a bit thick grasping the points being made. I claim my end on my insurance I fully accept excess kicking on. Somebody damages my property I expect it rectified at No cost. If, If excess rears its head then I don't care who makes the payment, or who claims from who but it should not be me. I am / did not claim on my insurance policy. Should be something in place to cover such instances . To much money to right off and I will continue to seek it back. My second port of call after I report the damage to the property owner should not be the bank for a loan to make up shortfall.
Thanks again for all advice given. 
All taken in manner it was intended. 

davidmcn

finlayjay said:

I am Not, not claiming on my policy

But effectively it is your policy - it's taken out in the joint names of all the owners in the block, including you.

csgohan4

OP seems maybe owning a flat is not for you as you  confusing moral obligation to legal rights. Can you prove negligence on the above owner for the burst pipe? That is what the insurer will ask. The onus is on you. 

Alot of insurers also don't cover for damage that has happened over time, so your claim may have limits as well. 

You can certainly try and use the small claims court but as you cannot prove negligence it will be money down the drain. 

By the way who damaged your property? The above owner did not maliciously cause damage, it was a pipe which you or I cannot reach or affect directly. 

It seems it's no ones fault, but you got to pay as it's in your property. You don't have to repair it, it's your property

It seems your venting/ emotional and not thinking about this rationally which the insurers will do. 

Sandtree

csgohan4 said:

OP seems maybe owning a flat is not for you as you  confusing moral obligation to legal rights. Can you prove negligence on the above owner for the burst pipe? That is what the insurer will ask. The onus is on you. 

Its not a situation I have had to deal with before but the OP is by virtue of being co-owner is co-insured,. You typically cannot be first and third party to the same event (this normally happens when you mess up driving into your garage and cause damage to both car and garage, you cannot claim off your motor insurance TP cover for the wall damage). I am not sure if the policy's third party liability section would respond when claimant and defendant are both policyholders

finlayjay

Thanks CS, your right, pop out after lunch tomorrow and get myself a nice wee bungalow. 
Thanks again I have seen the light.... 

eddddy

finlayjay said:

Thanks CS, your right, pop out after lunch tomorrow and get myself a nice wee bungalow. 

The situation will be the same... if a pipe leaks and floods the bungalow, and you decide to claim on insurance - you'll have to pay the excess.

(And there might even be a cold water storage tank in the loft of your bungalow. Very occasionally, they split dumping 100 to 250 litres of water through the ceiling. It happened to somebody I know.)

Sandtree

eddddy said:

finlayjay said:

Thanks CS, your right, pop out after lunch tomorrow and get myself a nice wee bungalow. 

The situation will be the same... if a pipe leaks and floods the bungalow, and you decide to claim on insurance - you'll have to pay the excess.

(And there might even be a cold water storage tank in the loft of your bungalow. Very occasionally, they split dumping 100 to 250 litres of water through the ceiling. It happened to somebody I know.)

but at least psychologically there are few others you can think of to blame... other than possibly the person that sold you the place.