Subsidence from water damage - what to do next

AskAsk

rockstarnorth said:

the court would ask if you pestered the water company for the bill when you didn't hear from them after 6 months?  did you?

No, but as a new home owner, I actually don't know how frequently different water companies issue bills. I would have assumed that I would have received notifications on reception of a bill and it has already been determined by the water co. that there is an issue in sending me these notifications.

this would be a weak argument in court.  if you state that the water company should have billed you more frequently than they did, then you must know how frequently they should bill you.  anyone who does not know how often water bills are issued could simply have asked other people, and would often have experience of such whilst they were renting or living at home with their parents.  even failing to have acquired that knowlegde (did you say you are actually of pensioner age?) any person would then assume it was monthly like any other utitlity bills so would have asked the water board constantly for the bills to be issued.

the fact that you did not contact them was probably because you were quite happy not to pay the bill and allow it to build up until you are actually billed.  i do not think the fault lies entirely with the water board.  as a consumer and home owner, you also have responsibility to make sure that your bills are paid (and if you haven't been billed for so long, to pester them to issue the bill) and to check for leaks within your own home by paying attention to the water bills.

as an independent person looking at your argument, i do not believe you have a strong case as the pipes are your responsibility and you were responsible for making sure they were not leaking by checking the water bills and you failed to even chase the waterboard for over a year when they didn't send you any bills.

troffasky

Bit of counterfactual thinking here, what if you didn't have a water meter? Would you then accept that it's your liability rather than the water company's? That would mean by installing water meters, water companies suddenly acquire a heap of unintended liabilities.

How long was the delay between the water company reading your meter and billing you? I can't see this mentioned in any of your posts on this thread.

Homer_home

Basically when you moved in you got set up with an estimated monthly amount which was taken out of your account every month for a year the the water company read the meter and went "woah this meter reading is higher then what we have been billing them we need to adjust the monthly amount as we have lost money on this and need to recoup it"

At no point in that year did you contact the water company to find out how often they send an actual bill or read the water meter nor did you clearly read the water meter yourself (normally water companies tell you how often they send you a bill / read the meter - mine does) if you had this leak would of been spotted sooner by yourself bear in mind this leak could of happened at any point in the last year but because you failed to take meter readings you didn't spot it

This is a classic case of the op trying to pin the blame on somebody else and somehow thinking they must be extraordinary negligent , when it is clearly the op who is at fault here

Annemos

DiddyDavies and AskAsk
I am reading your earlier posts in this thread about insurance cover. Can you please give me your views on this.

We seem to have two scenarios at play: 
1) A pipe breaks......it causes a water leak.....which then caused subsidence to the foundation and cracking to the building 

OR  2)  Ground movement causes Subsidence....which then also shifts the pipe causing it to leak water 

My question is: Are the different types of wording in all the policies trying to do one thing? You are covered for the cracking to the building, but the policy is trying to say whether you will claim it under the Subsidence Section of the Policy   OR   the Escape of Water Section of the policy. 

This would determine which excess you pay.  (In the case of Subsidence, the higher excess). And I think in some policies they may make you pay both excesses depending on the scenario and what type of damage was caused, say inside. (I saw that in an Ombudsman's case.) 

I find the different policies hard to follow, when it comes to Water. If my idea is correct, it does seem to make more sense. 

When you both look at the 3 policies you mentioned....would they all cover this person's damage...but in different parts of those policies? (One might say it is escape of water. The other might say it is  Subsidence). 

I did see an Ombudsman's case where they mentioned that if a Fire causes an Explosion, then it comes under the Fire section of that particular policy. So there is an ordering mechanism that seems to take place within policies. 

Thank you. 
(I think this person said earlier that the Insurance company denied it under Escape of Water....but I am wondering..... if the person had said  "I have a Subsidence claim"...should they then have considered it?) 

Annemos

Just read her case again.....seems odd. Poster is saying they would not take it as a Subsidence claim, but should it perhaps have come under an Escape of Water claim? 

AskAsk

Annemos said:

DiddyDavies and AskAsk
I am reading your earlier posts in this thread about insurance cover. Can you please give me your views on this.

We seem to have two scenarios at play: 
1) A pipe breaks......it causes a water leak.....which then caused subsidence to the foundation and cracking to the building 

OR  2)  Ground movement causes Subsidence....which then also shifts the pipe causing it to leak water 

My question is: Are the different types of wording in all the policies trying to do one thing? You are covered for the cracking to the building, but the policy is trying to say whether you will claim it under the Subsidence Section of the Policy   OR   the Escape of Water Section of the policy. 

This would determine which excess you pay.  (In the case of Subsidence, the higher excess). And I think in some policies they may make you pay both excesses depending on the scenario and what type of damage was caused, say inside. (I saw that in an Ombudsman's case.) 

I find the different policies hard to follow, when it comes to Water. If my idea is correct, it does seem to make more sense. 

When you both look at the 3 policies you mentioned....would they all cover this person's damage...but in different parts of those policies? (One might say it is escape of water. The other might say it is  Subsidence). 

I did see an Ombudsman's case where they mentioned that if a Fire causes an Explosion, then it comes under the Fire section of that particular policy. So there is an ordering mechanism that seems to take place within policies. 

Thank you. 
(I think this person said earlier that the Insurance company denied it under Escape of Water....but I am wondering..... if the person had said  "I have a Subsidence claim"...should they then have considered it?) 

it would appear that different policies will have different cover.  i think it all covers subsidence, but whether it will also cover water damage caused by subsidence seems to be dependent on the insurer.