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

GDB2222

Marvel1 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.

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

Don’t go away for an extended period!

HampshireH

Marvel1 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.

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

I would definitely be looking to put one in your house so your property can be isolated. Even just for repairs that's got to be more convenient.

I don't think most people on here meant the one in the road 

Marvel1

HampshireH said:

Marvel1 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.

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

I would definitely be looking to put one in your house so your property can be isolated. Even just for repairs that's got to be more convenient.

I don't think most people on here meant the one in the road 

Scary part is I think it would  , I had put outside the back, so if next door want to do work - I can turn theirs off and not affect me.

doodling

Hi,

A lot of people on this thread seem very confused about liability and negligence.

It is not negligent to leave a house unattended for 76 days, providing that there is no evidence suggesting that something bad would happen during that time. If the ball valve had been functioning correctly for the last three years then (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) it is reasonable to assume it will function correctly for the next 76 days.

If pipes had burst due to freezing then I agree that there might have been negligence if there hadn't been some level of heating left on, but that is not what happened here.

It is also worth noting that even if the OP was only away for a day, sufficient water could be released to damage the neighbours property.  The logical consequence of a claim that the OP was negligent is that we should all turn our water off every time we leave the house.  Maybe there is some social convention I've missed out on, but that isnt currently normal practice.

Of course if the ball valve was known to be dodgy then it might be negligent if the water wasn't turned off every time the property was unattended, no matter for how long.

Whether the OP has met the requirements of his insurer with respect to leaving the house unattended is entirely between him and his insurer and doesn't affect the next door neighbour.  Even if the OP's insurers declined the OP's claim because he hadn't met the terms of the policy, it makes no difference to whether the neighbour has a valid claim.

The neighbour cannot claim on the OP's insurance. They have a choice, they can either claim on their own insurance or they can claim directly against the OP.   If they claim on their own insurance then their insurer may (or may not) choose to recover the money they pay out to the neighbour from the OP.

If someone claims against the OP (either the neighbour or their insurer) then it is possible that that claim, if successful, might be covered by the OP's own insurance, if the OP has insurance which covers liability to others - this is not the same as buildings / contents insurance but is often (but not always) included as part of it.

If the OP has insurance that might cover liability to the neighbour then a condition of that insurance will almost certainly be that the OP must forward any claims they receive to their insurers so that the insurers have the option of responding to them (this is to avoid the possibility that the OP admits or increases the insurers liability in their communications with the party making the claim).

There is absolutely no guarantee that the OP's insurers will pay out if a claim from the neighbour or their insurers is passed to them - it sounds like they have concluded that the OP was not negligent so they will probably tell the neighbour or their insurers to go away.  If that doesn't work then it will end up going to court where a judge would decide if there was negligence or it would be dealt with as part of some kind of process within the insurance industry (but the OP probably wouldn't be involved in either case, the insurers would deal with it).

If I was in the OP's position I wouldn't be unfriendly to the neighbour but would be saying "Put your claim in writing and I will pass it to my insurers" - there is no obligation for the OP to tell the neighbour who his insurers are (unlike traffic accidents) and in the OP's shoes I probably wouldn't, if the neighbour asks then I would tell them that it is none of their business (which is correct, the neighbour's claim is against the OP in the first instance and the OP could choose not to involve their insurers although I think that would be a bad idea).  If I did receive something in writing from the neighbour or their insurer then I would pass it to my insurers with a coving letter pointing out that I don't believe I was negligent.  If the neighbour asks any questions after I'd passed their letter to my insurers then my response would be "I passed the letter to my insurers,  I'm sure they'll contact you in due course".

ThisIsWeird

doodling said:

Hi,

A lot of people on this thread seem very confused about liability and negligence.

It is not negligent to leave a house unattended for 76 days, providing that there is no evidence suggesting that something bad would happen during that time. If the ball valve had been functioning correctly for the last three years then (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) it is reasonable to assume it will function correctly for the next 76 days.

If pipes had burst due to freezing then I agree that there might have been negligence if there hadn't been some level of heating left on, but that is not what happened here.

It is also worth noting that even if the OP was only away for a day, sufficient water could be released to damage the neighbours property.  The logical consequence of a claim that the OP was negligent is that we should all turn our water off every time we leave the house.  Maybe there is some social convention I've missed out on, but that isnt currently normal practice.

Of course if the ball valve was known to be dodgy then it might be negligent if the water wasn't turned off every time the property was unattended, no matter for how long.

Whether the OP has met the requirements of his insurer with respect to leaving the house unattended is entirely between him and his insurer and doesn't affect the next door neighbour.  Even if the OP's insurers declined the OP's claim because he hadn't met the terms of the policy, it makes no difference to whether the neighbour has a valid claim.

The neighbour cannot claim on the OP's insurance. They have a choice, they can either claim on their own insurance or they can claim directly against the OP.   If they claim on their own insurance then their insurer may (or may not) choose to recover the money they pay out to the neighbour from the OP.

If someone claims against the OP (either the neighbour or their insurer) then it is possible that that claim, if successful, might be covered by the OP's own insurance, if the OP has insurance which covers liability to others - this is not the same as buildings / contents insurance but is often (but not always) included as part of it.

If the OP has insurance that might cover liability to the neighbour then a condition of that insurance will almost certainly be that the OP must forward any claims they receive to their insurers so that the insurers have the option of responding to them (this is to avoid the possibility that the OP admits or increases the insurers liability in their communications with the party making the claim).

There is absolutely no guarantee that the OP's insurers will pay out if a claim from the neighbour or their insurers is passed to them - it sounds like they have concluded that the OP was not negligent so they will probably tell the neighbour or their insurers to go away.  If that doesn't work then it will end up going to court where a judge would decide if there was negligence or it would be dealt with as part of some kind of process within the insurance industry (but the OP probably wouldn't be involved in either case, the insurers would deal with it).

If I was in the OP's position I wouldn't be unfriendly to the neighbour but would be saying "Put your claim in writing and I will pass it to my insurers" - there is no obligation for the OP to tell the neighbour who his insurers are (unlike traffic accidents) and in the OP's shoes I probably wouldn't, if the neighbour asks then I would tell them that it is none of their business (which is correct, the neighbour's claim is against the OP in the first instance and the OP could choose not to involve their insurers although I think that would be a bad idea).  If I did receive something in writing from the neighbour or their insurer then I would pass it to my insurers with a coving letter pointing out that I don't believe I was negligent.  If the neighbour asks any questions after I'd passed their letter to my insurers then my response would be "I passed the letter to my insurers,  I'm sure they'll contact you in due course".

Superb and succinct - thank you for this.

born_again

TheJP said:

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. 

Thankfully the OP insurance company did not think so. They are the only one's that matter to the OP.
So neighbour needs to contact their insurer. 
Which you have to wonder if they actually have, given their instance that OP pays up.

ThisIsWeird

TheJP said:

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. 

'Wise', yes - it's a nice additional safeguard. But 'negligent' to not do so? I can't see it.

Whatever is detailed in the insurance policy in order for it to be valid over an extended stay should obviously be complied with. If it isn't detailed in the insurance policy, then each individual should be as wise as their abilities allow them - no-one wants a flooded or burned-down house, however solid their insurance policy. Yes, for a few months I'd probably shut off my water too. But then, perhaps not if it were over winter and I wished to keep the central-heating going at a background level.

Would I expect every layperson to be able to make that judgement? No. So what 'wise' action are they supposed to do - call a plumber in order to safeguard their house?

Grumpy_chap

Opposite thread here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6436982/solved#latest