home flooding advice - liability

mauritius123

Hi guys,

My housing association property got (sewage flooded mainly through toilet) a couple of days ago and I didn't have contents insurance (mainly because i didn't have much of value worth stealing).

Although it was no doubt caused by excessive rain, i believe the severity was due to blockage on the property and had taken a picture the previous week where there was a water buildup over the drainage (but didn't get round to reporting it). I have also recently (after event) been told that the property had previously flooded in similar circumstances around 12 years ago which I wasn't told about. The surrounding properties (approx 3 either side) were also affected but when the outside drain cover was removed, the water build up was immediately drained, whereas with ours it barely moved until contractors arrived to clear the blockage. So I believe our flooding was much more severe (almost knee level when i evacuated) 

The HA has fobbed me off, frustratingly telling me I should have had contents insurance (which doesn't help now) and although I don't think I would have lost anything of high value, it's the little things that will add up (though I haven't been in the property since so don't know what the damage/losses are), such as passport, clothing, BT hub bedding as well as extra costs of moving into unfurnished temporary accommodation quite far from my home.

I was hoping if anyone could advise if I have a leg to stand on and if there's anything worth fighting for or if I should just take it on the chin and learn a hard lesson on importance of contents insurance.

Many thanks

FreeBear

mauritius123 said: The HA has fobbed me off, frustratingly telling me I should have had contents insurance (which doesn't help now)

I'm afraid that the HA is correct. Contents insurance covers you for much more than just theft and would have helped in this situation. Even then, it probably wouldn't have covered the cost of new-for-old, so you would still be out of pocket.

mauritius123

thanks Freebear,

Doesn't sound particularly fair, but it is what it is. I feel they could have told me the property had flooded before and was vulnerable to it and sounds like contents insurance is not similar to car insurance where the victim would claim from the negligent party to avoid premium hikes. 

eddddy

mauritius123 said:

thanks Freebear,

Doesn't sound particularly fair, but it is what it is. I feel they could have told me the property had flooded before and was vulnerable to it and sounds like contents insurance is not similar to car insurance where the victim would claim from the negligent party to avoid premium hikes. 

It's exactly the same as car insurance - if the HA has been negligent, you can claim from them for any resulting damage.

But, unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the HA has been negligent in this case.

If, for example, you had reported the blockage some time ago, and the HA did nothing about it - that might have been negligent.



Or are you wondering whether the HA was negligent because they didn't tell you about the flooding 12 years ago?

user1977

Even if they had told you about the flooding 12 years ago (and I don't see any reason why they should have), what difference would that have made?

mauritius123

It's exactly the same as car insurance - if the HA has been negligent, you can claim from them for any resulting damage.

But, unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the HA has been negligent in this case.

If, for example, you had reported the blockage some time ago, and the HA did nothing about it - that might have been negligent.



Or are you wondering whether the HA was negligent because they didn't tell you about the flooding 12 years ago?

I feel they should have warned me it had flooded before and was vulnerable to it (interesting that on a huge street only a few properties around mine were affected) and no doubt the contents insurance would have been high anyway. And although, I didn't get round to reporting the issue (despite taking a picture of it 6 days ago) I've been informed that a neighbor has reported this to the Housing Association multiple times, and I think (not 100% sure yet) that others in the building (converted house of 9 flats) have reported this issue in the past.

Naturally I am kicking myself that I didn't report it at the time I took the picture but living there has been a non stop nightmare and this is the pinnacle

eddddy

mauritius123 said:

 I've been informed that a neighbor has reported this to the Housing Association multiple times, and I think (not 100% sure yet) that others in the building (converted house of 9 flats) have reported this issue in the past.

Well... perhaps the HA has been negligent in that case.

In simple terms, "negligence" means failing to act in a way that a reasonable person would act.  If somebody reported the problem multiple times, but the HA did nothing - maybe that's not reasonable.

But equally, if it was a result of the recent unusually heavy rainfall - a reasonable person might not have predicted the very heavy rainfall.


I guess you can argue the case with the HA. But if they refuse to do anything, you'd have to decide whether you want to take the matter to court.

mauritius123

Even if they had told you about the flooding 12 years ago (and I don't see any reason why they should have), what difference would that have made?

Big difference, as I would have seen the need for insurance in a completely different way

mauritius123

eddddy said:

mauritius123 said:

 I've been informed that a neighbor has reported this to the Housing Association multiple times, and I think (not 100% sure yet) that others in the building (converted house of 9 flats) have reported this issue in the past.

Well... perhaps the HA has been negligent in that case.

In simple terms, "negligence" means failing to act in a way that a reasonable person would act.  If somebody reported the problem multiple times, but the HA did nothing - maybe that's not reasonable.

But equally, if it was a result of the recent unusually heavy rainfall - a reasonable person might not have predicted the very heavy rainfall.


I guess you can argue the case with the HA. But if they refuse to do anything, you'd have to decide whether you want to take the matter to court.

thank's Eddy, I woud suggest that they are negligent especially as the heavy rainfall did not affect other part of the (huge road) and without a doubt the drainage on the property played a massive part in what happened.

I am sure the HA won't budge, especially given my nightmare experience with them, so it's sounding like I will have to bite my tongue and take it on the chin as unfair as it feels 

mauritius123

Finally beginning to get somewhere with this. The emergency plumbing company have confirmed that there was a blockage on the properties drain, which still needs to be unblocked. They won't however supply me with a copy of the report.

I contacted them after speaking to Thames, who were very dismissive when I told them about the blockage, simply rejecting it in favour of "hydraulic overload" - which was the easiest answer to absolve them of any responsibility even though the engineer (or whatever he was who attended after the flood) simply disinfected the outside and did no investigation whatsoever!

Having spoke to the same person again, confirming what the drainage company said he completely changed his attitude and will arrange inspection of the drain.

Interestingly someone who was helping with the flood next door told me to ask Thames why Flip pumps were installed in other parts of the street, but not where we live. To help answer this the street is home to many multi million pound properties and a section of social housing ( which was the ones affected by the flooding). When put to the Thames guy, he seemed to understand the reason for this.

Given the complexity of this, could anyone recommend an online forum where I could get some valuable advice? I would have gone to the consumer Action Group site but they don't really seem to specialise in this kind of thing.

Section62

mauritius123 said:

Even if they had told you about the flooding 12 years ago (and I don't see any reason why they should have), what difference would that have made?

Big difference, as I would have seen the need for insurance in a completely different way

If you made a claim on that basis it would be reasonable for the defendant to point out you were aware of the issues 6 days before the event (you took pictures) and that wasn't sufficient for you to immediately arrange contents insurance or take other mitigating steps, so why should a court believe you'd have done anything differently if you had been informed about historic (12 years ago) flooding?

mauritius123 said:

Interestingly someone who was helping with the flood next door told me to ask Thames why Flip pumps were installed in other parts of the street, but not where we live. To help answer this the street is home to many multi million pound properties and a section of social housing ( which was the ones affected by the flooding). When put to the Thames guy, he seemed to understand the reason for this.

What does this person think a "Flip pump" is?  Is that a typo, or a misunderstanding by someone?