fire brigade damage to door to get access to semi detached property which was not damaged by fire.

brinalack

property is a semi-detached house that I own. There was a serious fire in the adjoining property which is owned by the council and tenanted. The brigade managed to put out the fire and my property was not affected. I was absent on holiday at the time and the nearest key holder to my property was 90 minutes drive away. The brigade insisted on getting access to my property to ensure that the fire had not got access via the loft space. They were not prepared to wait for the keyholder to get there so they smashed in my back door to get access. there was no other damage to my property. The cost of a new door replacement is in the region of £500. The fire was apparently arson following a domestic dispute. Whilst I believe that I can claim under my Home policy as "emergency damage", I will still have to fork out the £300 excess and the likely increase in my insurance premium for years to come. In view of the circumstances of the fire do I have a case against the Council for the action of their tenant?  I dont think there is any chance of getting anything from the fire brigade or the tenants themselves. 
 

CSI_Yorkshire

No.

You would only have any case against someone if you could prove that they had been negligent.  I don't see how this tenant's action makes the council negligent.

bluelad1927

There may be a claim against the buildings insurance of the adjoining property whoever holds that.

You seem annoyed by the fire brigade. Would you have preferred that they just left without the checks being made

CSI_Yorkshire

bluelad1927 said:

There may be a claim against the buildings insurance of the adjoining property whoever holds that.

Unlikely.  Why would damage to this property be covered by next door's buildings insurance?

DullGreyGuy

CSI_Yorkshire said:

bluelad1927 said:

There may be a claim against the buildings insurance of the adjoining property whoever holds that.

Unlikely.  Why would damage to this property be covered by next door's buildings insurance?

As Home Contents insurance includes liability cover for losses suffered by third partys by the actions of the occupiers of the insured home. 

Would need to know more about the circumstances of the "arson" and if the arsonist lives at the property or not. It would however be up to the neighbour if they wanted their insurers to deal with it or if they deal with it personally. (Also assumes they have contents insurance)

CSI_Yorkshire

DullGreyGuy said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

bluelad1927 said:

There may be a claim against the buildings insurance of the adjoining property whoever holds that.

Unlikely.  Why would damage to this property be covered by next door's buildings insurance?

As Home Contents insurance includes liability cover for losses suffered by third partys by the actions of the occupiers of the insured home. 

Would need to know more about the circumstances of the "arson" and if the arsonist lives at the property or not. It would however be up to the neighbour if they wanted their insurers to deal with it or if they deal with it personally. (Also assumes they have contents insurance)

So that would be a claim against Home Contents insurance, not Buildings insurance then.  And there would need to be some liability, which I don't think has been established.  

moneysaver1978

Is it worth chatting to the landlord of that house (and use your charm) to see if they'd be willing to assist? If there's arson then the home owner would probably claim on insurance anyway.

EDIT: just noticed it is owned council. Sorry disregard

DullGreyGuy

CSI_Yorkshire said:

DullGreyGuy said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

bluelad1927 said:

There may be a claim against the buildings insurance of the adjoining property whoever holds that.

Unlikely.  Why would damage to this property be covered by next door's buildings insurance?

As Home Contents insurance includes liability cover for losses suffered by third partys by the actions of the occupiers of the insured home. 

Would need to know more about the circumstances of the "arson" and if the arsonist lives at the property or not. It would however be up to the neighbour if they wanted their insurers to deal with it or if they deal with it personally. (Also assumes they have contents insurance)

So that would be a claim against Home Contents insurance, not Buildings insurance then.  And there would need to be some liability, which I don't think has been established.  

As mentioned, it would depend on the details of whats happened and who the arsonist is. Based on the term it would imply the fire was not an accident even if the result of rash actions. 

Buildings insurance also has a liability cover but that is as the property owners, so if it had been an electrical fault causing the fire etc. then possibly but the term "arsonist" would suggest a person actively doing something to cause the fire which would lead it more likely to be a Contents issue.

Undervalued

brinalack said:

property is a semi-detached house that I own. There was a serious fire in the adjoining property which is owned by the council and tenanted. The brigade managed to put out the fire and my property was not affected. I was absent on holiday at the time and the nearest key holder to my property was 90 minutes drive away. The brigade insisted on getting access to my property to ensure that the fire had not got access via the loft space. They were not prepared to wait for the keyholder to get there so they smashed in my back door to get access. there was no other damage to my property. The cost of a new door replacement is in the region of £500. The fire was apparently arson following a domestic dispute. Whilst I believe that I can claim under my Home policy as "emergency damage", I will still have to fork out the £300 excess and the likely increase in my insurance premium for years to come. In view of the circumstances of the fire do I have a case against the Council for the action of their tenant?  I dont think there is any chance of getting anything from the fire brigade or the tenants themselves. 
 

The fire service have significant legal powers to carry out their legal duties. Quite rightly too! Assuming they acted correctly then you have no claim against them.

You may have a claim against the tenants and / or owners of the property where the fire started. They can pass that on to their insurers (assuming they are insured).

DullGreyGuy

Undervalued said:
You may have a claim against the tenants and / or owners of the property where the fire started. They can pass that on to their insurers (assuming they are insured).

Given fire was caused by arson, how do you think the property owner (council in this case) is responsible?

CliveOfIndia

DullGreyGuy said:

Undervalued said:
You may have a claim against the tenants and / or owners of the property where the fire started. They can pass that on to their insurers (assuming they are insured).

Given fire was caused by arson, how do you think the property owner (council in this case) is responsible?

Would the council need to be held responsible in order for their insurance to pay up?  Genuine question, by the way, I'm not arguing with you !

Isn't this similar to the old chestnut of a roof tile falling off your roof and damaging your neighbour's car?  No-one is at fault as such, it's just a genuine accident, and your insurance would normally cover the damage to your neighbour's car.

In this scenario it's not the fault of either the council or the tenant, but I would have thought their insurance would still cover them - though I may be completely wrong !