I need help with my flooding and my neighbours demands for money

HampshireH

Sabbir said:

Thank you Jonnydepp and Edi81, I paid an extra premium to be away for 76 days

That's good. In your last post I thought you said you paid that after the event and not before.

Needless to say I do half agree that it is negligent to leave a property for over 2 months and not drain is down and (or at the very least) turn the water off.

You are very lucky that they accept that you didn't turn the water off and are covering your claim.

Your neighbour needs to liaise with their insurer who in turn will liaise with yours and vice versa

Grumpy_chap

The neighbour needs to claim from their insurance.  The neighbour's insurer will counter claim from the OP's insurer 

ThisIsWeird

I think we can all agree that Sabbir has been incredibly fortunate here, and I can only assume that the insurance company in this case showed some genuine humanity due to his medical condition. Kudos to that assessor.

I suspect we all do also agree that there are things that can, and ideally should, be done to help mitigate against such incidents in the first place, but unless it's specified as a requirement in the policy, there is no onus on folk to do so. Not everyone is capable of draining down a system, for example. I am, but would still hate to have to do it - what a palaver. 

When renewing my policy, all it ever asks is if the house will be left unattended for more than 30 days at a time, and the answer is always 'no'. That's it. If we were to be away for the whole 30 days, I still wouldn't drain down the system... Ok, in winter I'd leave the CH on 'background', but things will just happen; the boiler could pack in, the ballcock could seize, a pipe joint could fail.

That's what insurance is for.

eddddy

ThisIsWeird said:

I suspect we all do also agree that there are things that can, and ideally should, be done to help mitigate against such incidents in the first place, but unless it's specified as a requirement in the policy, there is no onus on folk to do so. Not everyone is capable of draining down a system, for example. I am, but would still hate to have to do it - what a palaver. 

When renewing my policy, all it ever asks is if the house will be left unattended for more than 30 days at a time, and the answer is always 'no'. That's it. If we were to be away for the whole 30 days, I still wouldn't drain down the system... Ok, in winter I'd leave the CH on 'background', but things will just happen; the boiler could pack in, the ballcock could seize, a pipe joint could fail.

FWIW, the OP seems to say that ballcock seized on the water tank in the attic, which caused the flood. So just turning off the main stop tap before going away would have prevented the flood - rather than needing to have drained down the system.

But anyway, there should have been an overflow outlet pipe on the tank specifically to deal with this type of problem.

Perhaps the overflow pipe had frozen, or maybe it was overwhelmed and unable to get the excess water out fast enough.

ThisIsWeird

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

I suspect we all do also agree that there are things that can, and ideally should, be done to help mitigate against such incidents in the first place, but unless it's specified as a requirement in the policy, there is no onus on folk to do so. Not everyone is capable of draining down a system, for example. I am, but would still hate to have to do it - what a palaver. 

When renewing my policy, all it ever asks is if the house will be left unattended for more than 30 days at a time, and the answer is always 'no'. That's it. If we were to be away for the whole 30 days, I still wouldn't drain down the system... Ok, in winter I'd leave the CH on 'background', but things will just happen; the boiler could pack in, the ballcock could seize, a pipe joint could fail.

FWIW, the OP seems to say that ballcock seized on the water tank in the attic, which caused the flood. So just turning off the main stop tap before going away would have prevented the flood - rather than needing to have drained down the system.

But anyway, there should have been an overflow outlet pipe on the tank specifically to deal with this type of problem.

Perhaps the overflow pipe had frozen, or maybe it was overwhelmed and unable to get the excess water out fast enough.

Yes, indeed, Eddddy. It just goes to show, there are lots of variables.

For instance, if you were going away for just a week, would you still shut off the water? If not, such a random event as a stuck ball valve could still cause the same damage.

Or, if you were leaving the house over winter, with the CH on tickover, would you shut off the stopcock then - if you had a vented system?

I agree that obvious steps should be taken to reduce risk, but many folk they wouldn't have a scooby about what the consequences of turning off their sc could be. A good %-age would struggle to reopen them on their return. A good number more would now be having a slow drip from them :-)

TheJP

ThisIsWeird said:

warwick2001 said:

TBagpuss said:

You need to send your neighbour's letter to your insurance company (probably not the loss adjuster, it's likely to be a different department, phone them up and ask them who/where to send them) Basically, you need to notify them that your neighbour is seeking to make a claim.

You can say to your neighbour that he will need to make a claim on his own insurance - if you then receive anything from his insurance then you would pass that to your insurance company.  

If you are worried about the relationship - I suspect that if you speak to your insurance company they will tell you to pass everything to them and not to negotiate with him direct, in which case you can say to him that your insurance company has told you not to correspond with him directly so can he go via his insurers.

Unfortunately, you may well still end up with the relationship souring - he's going to wind up paying his excess and probably having higher premiums (as are you) 

Especially considering he was blameless in this situation, sucks to be him!

That's the way the cookie crumbles. Similar to the pretty common situation seen on here where it's a block of flats, where a (no-fault) leak from upstairs brings your ceiling down. The building's insurance should cover the damaged fabric, but for anything else spoiled in your flat you'll need to claim off your own content's policy.

Should the 'leaking' owner pay out from their own pocket in either case? Obviously not - they weren't at fault. Should their insurance co. pay out for the other property? Maybe yes, maybe no - but that's for them to sort out.

The OP was out of country for 76 days, did they make sure that there was no way a leak could happen? I'm surprised the insurance company are covering this unless the OP notified them and had their premium adjusted beyond the 30 day window of vacant property cover.

I think the OP has liability here but that will be for the insurance companies and neighbour to thrash out. It wouldn't surprise me if the neighbour takes the OP to small claims court over this. If it was me as the neighbour i would absolutely hold the OP accountable. 

GDB2222

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

I suspect we all do also agree that there are things that can, and ideally should, be done to help mitigate against such incidents in the first place, but unless it's specified as a requirement in the policy, there is no onus on folk to do so. Not everyone is capable of draining down a system, for example. I am, but would still hate to have to do it - what a palaver. 

When renewing my policy, all it ever asks is if the house will be left unattended for more than 30 days at a time, and the answer is always 'no'. That's it. If we were to be away for the whole 30 days, I still wouldn't drain down the system... Ok, in winter I'd leave the CH on 'background', but things will just happen; the boiler could pack in, the ballcock could seize, a pipe joint could fail.

FWIW, the OP seems to say that ballcock seized on the water tank in the attic, which caused the flood. So just turning off the main stop tap before going away would have prevented the flood - rather than needing to have drained down the system.

But anyway, there should have been an overflow outlet pipe on the tank specifically to deal with this type of problem.

Perhaps the overflow pipe had frozen, or maybe it was overwhelmed and unable to get the excess water out fast enough.

If the ball fills with water, the inlet to the tank would be fully open. I don’t think many overflows can cope with that. 

TheJP

ThisIsWeird said:

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

I suspect we all do also agree that there are things that can, and ideally should, be done to help mitigate against such incidents in the first place, but unless it's specified as a requirement in the policy, there is no onus on folk to do so. Not everyone is capable of draining down a system, for example. I am, but would still hate to have to do it - what a palaver. 

When renewing my policy, all it ever asks is if the house will be left unattended for more than 30 days at a time, and the answer is always 'no'. That's it. If we were to be away for the whole 30 days, I still wouldn't drain down the system... Ok, in winter I'd leave the CH on 'background', but things will just happen; the boiler could pack in, the ballcock could seize, a pipe joint could fail.

FWIW, the OP seems to say that ballcock seized on the water tank in the attic, which caused the flood. So just turning off the main stop tap before going away would have prevented the flood - rather than needing to have drained down the system.

But anyway, there should have been an overflow outlet pipe on the tank specifically to deal with this type of problem.

Perhaps the overflow pipe had frozen, or maybe it was overwhelmed and unable to get the excess water out fast enough.

Yes, indeed, Eddddy. It just goes to show, there are lots of variables.

For instance, if you were going away for just a week, would you still shut off the water? If not, such a random event as a stuck ball valve could still cause the same damage.

Or, if you were leaving the house over winter, with the CH on tickover, would you shut off the stopcock then - if you had a vented system?

I agree that obvious steps should be taken to reduce risk, but many folk they wouldn't have a scooby about what the consequences of turning off their sc could be. A good %-age would struggle to reopen them on their return. A good number more would now be having a slow drip from them :-)

Naivety doesn't cancel out negligence. For this is the reason why i feel the OP is liable. Going away for 76 days and not making sure things such as water were turned off is being negligent and has resulted in damage to the neighbours property which the OP has no intention on helping with. 

TheJP

Sabbir said:

Thanks m0bov, if I stop communicating with my neighbour , I will have a bad relationship, is this what is needed?

I think that ship has sailed.

ThisIsWeird

TheJP said:

The OP was out of country for 76 days, did they make sure that there was no way a leak could happen? I'm surprised the insurance company are covering this unless the OP notified them and had their premium adjusted beyond the 30 day window of vacant property cover.

I think the OP has liability here but that will be for the insurance companies and neighbour to thrash out. It wouldn't surprise me if the neighbour takes the OP to small claims court over this. If it was me as the neighbour i would absolutely hold the OP accountable. 

We know the story, and the ultimate outcome.

I understand - and to a fair extent agree - with the principle of what you say; for such an extended period, perhaps some contingencies should have been put in place (and certainly, if it was a requirement of the policy). My quibble is with your term 'liability'.

If this leak had occurred within the standard 30-day insurance period, causing the exact same amount of damage, would the OP have then been 'liable'? Surely it's 'no'? He'd have completely fulfilled the requirements of his 'standard' policy, and we also know he was not negligent in the cause - so he would not have been liable.

Astonishingly, the insurance co. has in this case allowed him to back-date an extension to the duration of absence to cover the much longer time he was away, and have honoured the claim. I presume, then, that in all other respects he has equally conformed to the requirements of that policy change. Despite this seeming fact, you think he is now 'liable'? How? Why?

The neighb can try, and the OP's insurance may well cover the damage to their house (good chance they will), but I would say there's a cat's chance of the neighb succeeding in a personal 'liability' action against the OP, or forcing a penny out of him. Because he did everything that was 'required' of him, so was not negligent, and is not liable.