Money Moral Dilemma: A fire at my house damaged my neighbour's place - should I pay for the repairs?

MSE_Kelvin

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

A recent fire at my house caused damage to my and my neighbours' properties. The damage to my place was small, which is a blessing, as I don't have home insurance. My neighbours' place suffered about £300 of damage, which is around the same amount as their excess, so they've asked me to pay them back for the repair costs. The fire was an accident, and I've been told that, legally, I don't have to pay them anything, but should I?

Unfortunately the MSE team can't answer Money Moral Dilemma questions as contributions are emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value. Remember that behind each dilemma there is a real person so, as the forum rules say, please keep it kind and keep it clean.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Got a Money Moral Dilemma of your own? Suggest an MMD.
View past Money Moral Dilemmas.

marcia_

 I wouldn't unless you really have the money laying around. 

 If it was an accident not caused by you then I don't think you should have to pay. 

tacpot12

Yes. It's was a fire in your property, I would say that you are morally responsible even if you aren't responsible in law. 

If you can't pay, then offer to pay what you can pay and explain why you can't pay more.  

Rob5342

No, I wouldn't, that's what insurance is for.

Not having home insurance is absolute lunacy, for the sake of saving a few pounds a month you could have ended up homeless.

TELLIT01

Assuming insurance is in place the insurer will take care of it.  The neighbour should have their own insurance if the occupant of the house which caught fire didn't.  They should pay out and then chase the 'guilty' party if their negligence was the cause of the fire.

Aretnap

The law is based on a perfectly reasonable moral principle - if the damage to your neighbours property is is due to fault or negligence on your part then you have to pay for it; if it's due to pure bad luck then you don't.

I don't see any need to invent extra moral principles which go beyond the one that the law uses, nor do I see a convincing moral case that you should be expected to pay for things that realistically you could not have done anything to prevent.

Just_An_Opinion

tacpot12 said:

Yes. It's was a fire in your property, I would say that you are morally responsible even if you aren't responsible in law. 

If you can't pay, then offer to pay what you can pay and explain why you can't pay more.  

Why are they morally responsible. This is why people have insurance.
Would you pay to repair their house if it had burnt down or would they claim on the insurance? Just because it's £300 instead of £300,000 it all the same.

Just_An_Opinion

You wouldn't pay for it if their house had burnt down and it cost you £300,000 so why should you pay when it costs £300?

riding_pink

Surely if the neighbour claims on their own insurance the insurer will come after you anyway, if the fire stemmed from your property, and without insurance you’ll dig into your own pocket anyway 

Rd1994

No - that’s what insurance is for. When your neighbours took out their policy they would have agreed to a £300 premium. Often you can pay more monthly and get a lower premium. Not your fault I wouldn’t bother unless you have the cash going spare and want to be extra neighbourly. 

2702

If you want to be on good relations with your neighbour then pay. But you have no legal responsibility to pay. Really depends on the relationship you have/want with them.