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

ThisIsWeird

Sabbir said:

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

I wouldn't 'stop communicating' with this neighbour - just be neighbourly in the way you have always been. When it comes to talking about this unfortunate case, explain what the correct procedure is - that's all. You are not personally liable for this, or else your insurance co would not be covering it. These are the facts.

If your neighbour persists in trying to get cash out of you for this, then that reflects more on him than you. Buy them a bottle of plonk as a 'sorry for all the hassle' by all means, but you are insured and so is he - that's how it works.

If his house went up in flames and smoke-damaged your house and its contents, would you ask him for a few £k from his pocket to get rid of the smell, replace your precious items, and redecorate?

Of course you wouldn't.

Your neighb has got it wrong, imo.

Grumpy_chap

GDB2222 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.

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. 

That's exactly what a correctly sized overflow should be designed to handle.

Torry_Quine

Grumpy_chap said:

GDB2222 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.

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. 

That's exactly what a correctly sized overflow should be designed to handle.

Mine did exactly that. My overflow was constantly pouring water. When a plumber checked the ballcock had stuck in the water tank. 

TheJP

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

It doesn't matter about 30 days or 76, the OP knew they were vacating the property for an extended time and from what we gather didn't have anyone check in on the property. The OP has a duty of care towards his property and those under it which is what we would class as not being negligent, the OP took no steps to safeguard their own property and those around them during a long vacated time. 

My argument is, ok OP changed the insurance premium to cover the 30 days + but that doesn't clear them as being negligent. The OP left the property for 76 days without due care and attention relaying on their increased insurance premium for cover and yet expect their neighbour to be out of pocket and inconvenienced as a result.

This is why i think the neighbour has a case against the OP.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

The OP's insurance company accepting the claim suggests they agree the OP is liable.  If there was no liability on the OP's part then (unless it was commercially expedient) they would have declined the claim.

The insurance company itself isn't liable as such, but they have agreed (in exchange for a premium) to deal with any* liability claims made against the OP.  (* i.e. those that are lawful, and covered by the policy)

(it might help to view this as two separate liabilities - one the OP has to third parties, the other that the insurer has to deal with claims in accordance with the contract the OP has with them)

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

The OP's insurance company accepting the claim suggests they agree the OP is liable.  If there was no liability on the OP's part then (unless it was commercially expedient) they would have declined the claim.

The insurance company itself isn't liable as such, but they have agreed (in exchange for a premium) to deal with any* liability claims made against the OP.  (* i.e. those that are lawful, and covered by the policy)

(it might help to view this as two separate liabilities - one the OP has to third parties, the other that the insurer has to deal with claims in accordance with the contract the OP has with them)

Semantics, surely?

By 'liable', I mean personally liable, as in negligent in some way. Insurance pays out when there's a valid claim for damages, one that fulfills the requirements of their policy. They wouldn't pay out for arson, or for the OP turning a hose on their property.

Do you think the neighb has a personal liability claim against the OP?

ThisIsWeird

TheJP said:

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

It doesn't matter about 30 days or 76, the OP knew they were vacating the property for an extended time and from what we gather didn't have anyone check in on the property. The OP has a duty of care towards his property and those under it which is what we would class as not being negligent, the OP took no steps to safeguard their own property and those around them during a long vacated time. 

My argument is, ok OP changed the insurance premium to cover the 30 days + but that doesn't clear them as being negligent. The OP left the property for 76 days without due care and attention relaying on their increased insurance premium for cover and yet expect their neighbour to be out of pocket and inconvenienced as a result.

This is why i think the neighbour has a case against the OP.

The OP was now negligent?! 

So, unless you go beyond the requirements of your policy, like getting someone to check your house each week, you are 'negligent'?!

Q1 - how many folk can organise or rely on someone to visit their home once a week? You do this, yes?
Q2 - what happens if they are one day late?
Q3 - what happens if the ball valve sticks on the day after they visit - so there's 6 days of coursing water?

The OP conformed with, and fulfilled, all the requirements of their valid insurance policy - didn't they? 

TheJP

ThisIsWeird said:

TheJP said:

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

It doesn't matter about 30 days or 76, the OP knew they were vacating the property for an extended time and from what we gather didn't have anyone check in on the property. The OP has a duty of care towards his property and those under it which is what we would class as not being negligent, the OP took no steps to safeguard their own property and those around them during a long vacated time. 

My argument is, ok OP changed the insurance premium to cover the 30 days + but that doesn't clear them as being negligent. The OP left the property for 76 days without due care and attention relaying on their increased insurance premium for cover and yet expect their neighbour to be out of pocket and inconvenienced as a result.

This is why i think the neighbour has a case against the OP.

The OP was now negligent?! 

So, unless you go beyond the requirements of your policy, like getting someone to check your house each week, you are 'negligent'?!

Q1 - how many folk can organise or rely on someone to visit their home once a week? You do this, yes?
Q2 - what happens if they are one day late?
Q3 - what happens if the ball valve sticks on the day after they visit - so there's 6 days of coursing water?

The OP conformed with, and fulfilled, all the requirements of their valid insurance policy - didn't they? 

Ok, lets simplify this. If you are leaving your house unattended for 76 days do you not think that it is wise to safeguard the property, i bet the OP double checked the property was locked up. All your Qs are rectified by turning the water off. Would i do this for 1-2 weeks away no not really but we are talking about 76 days, that is almost 3 months! The OP in my opinion was negligent. 

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

TheJP said:

.....

Because he did everything that was 'required' of him, so was not negligent, and is not liable.

The insurance company itself isn't liable as such, but they have agreed (in exchange for a premium) to deal with any* liability claims made against the OP.  (* i.e. those that are lawful, and covered by the policy)

(it might help to view this as two separate liabilities - one the OP has to third parties, the other that the insurer has to deal with claims in accordance with the contract the OP has with them)

Semantics, surely?

By 'liable', I mean personally liable, as in not negligent. Insurance pays out when there's a valid claim for damages, one that fulfills the requirements of their policy. They wouldn't pay out for arson, or for the OP turning a hose on their property.

Do you think the neighb has a personal liability claim against the OP?

BiB1 - No, its about how the law works.

I think you are possibly getting confused between the OP's responsibility with regard to neighbour(s) and the OP's responsibility in regard to their contract with the insurer.

Doing the things the insurer expects doesn't nullify the OP's potential liability to third parties.

I think in a case like this it is a little difficult to determine whether the OP has been negligent.  Arguably they could reasonably expected to turn the water off when going away for an extended period of time in the winter months.  Arguably they should have arraged some preventative maintenance (e.g. checking the state of the plumbing) before leaving the water on and going away for an extended period.  I don't know enough of the details of the OP's situation to say for sure, but there are other possible things such as arranging a keyholder the neighbours could contact if there was problem.

Ultimately it might be a question of whether the OP could reasonably foresee the possibility of a plumbing problem during the winter months, in the knowledge there was another homeowner who may be affected by such a problem.

If the neighbour has a claim then it is the OP who is initially liable.  That the OP's liability to pay out may be passed to the insurer is a separate matter.

BiB2 - This is about the OP's contract with the insurer.  In principle there is nothing stopping an insurer covering and/or paying out in the case of (say) arson, but no sensible insurer would offer a policy that placed them at such risk of paying out very large amounts of money for something under the full control of the policy holder.  The exclusions are not about the liability to third parties - they are there to protect the insurer (and sometimes to comply with the law).

Marvel1

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.

Justto touch on this, if I switched my main stop tap, next door will be stopped too.