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

JayD

I wish folk would read the dilemma properly before responding. The member says "as I don't have home insurance"  and that the £300 damage equalled the £300 excess the neighbours have on their insurance. Hence the neighbour being out of pocket because of the damage caused to their property by the fire.

To be hones, in a similar situation, I would very much expect my neighbour to reimburse me for the damage caused by their fire - however it occurred. I am certain I would do my best to reimburse them were it the other way around.

Maybe it is only a question of personal morals or conscience - but I would certainly repay as much of the £300 that I could afford, or all of it if I could afford that.

Grumpyretiree

You have a moral responsibility to pay. If they claim on their insurance it will generally be factored into their renewal premiums for up to 5 years. They deserve not to experience any financial loss and the only way to achieve this is for you to meet the cost. 

Get some insurance as it is folly not to. 

gloriouslyhappy

At the start of the discussion, I would say that while the house started at mine it could just as easily started and theirs and the situation would be reverse, so I do empathise.  That being said, the fire was not caused by my negligence, and I believe it would be difficult for anyone to prove otherwise. However, I value my relationship with them as my neighbour and therefore I would like them to send me a without prejudice letter containing both our names and addresses and stating that they are seeking to recover an £300 excess for damage caused by a fire that started in my home. Enclosing the letter from their insurance company confirming the amount paid by them excluding the £300 excess as evidence of their uninsured loss.   Telling them that upon receipt I will give it due consideration and respond in writing. 

Then providing it all stacks up, I would then write a without prejudice letter making an offer, stating that while liability is not accepted, as a gesture of good will I am willing to offer (amount e.g. half) in full and final settlement. They have 7 days to accept the offer then it will be withdrawn. If they wish to accept it, they must write a letter containing both names and addresses accepting the offer in full and final settlement. 

Upon receipt of this I would ask for their bank details and make a bank transfer, and confirm in a final letter containing both names and addresses that this has been done in full and final settlement. 

Providing all the correspondence was worded correctly and the bank transfer is done, this is evidence that the matter was fully settled and should prevent the third party from being able to pursue any further claims against me.

This is sensible advice from JayneyM.  The neighbour's damage is stated as being about £300, which is the same amount as their policy excess, therefore the neighbours will be unable to claim on their policy. As the homeowner of the property where the fire started doesn't have insurance, the neighbours are left out of pocket for the £300. The homeowner themselves states their own damage is slight. Therefore it makes sense and aids neighbourly relations to offer to share costs as outlined by JayneyM above. However as the neighbour chose to have a £300 excess, I don't think that means the other homeowner should have to pay for the entire repair as the fire was not due to their negligence, just an unfortunate accident.

TBagpuss

YEs, I think if it was not due to any negligence I'd be inclided to say taht to the neighbour, and thatsay that having taken dvice, you've been advised that you are not liable, but as a gesture of goodwill, you would be open to donating £150 towrds their repairs subject to a wwritten confirmtion tht they have no further claims agaisnt you. For the sake of remaining on good terms with your neighours it's sometimes worth doing a bit more than the bare legal minimum, and it's not their faut there was a fire, either. 

JainEm

It's very simple. If you'd had insurance, it would have covered your neighbour's repairs. As you haven't, you've saved yourself the cost of this over the period you've lived there, so the least you can do is pay your neighbour the £300 excess they have to stump up to claim on their own policy. It's irrelevant that their excess is high, the fire originated with you.

GET INSURANCE!!!!

Aretnap

Amazing how many people think that the OP's lack of home insurance is somehow the crucial detail here. In all probability it would have made no difference.

Home insurance does not cover damage to your neighbour's property. It is there to protect you, not to protect your neighbour. If your neighbour wants his property to be protected from fire, or for that matter from storms, floods or burglaries (none of which are his fault either) then the onus is on him too insure it himself. And by extension if he doesn't want the risk of having to pay £300 excess for something that wasn't his fault, the onus is on him to buy a policy with a smaller excess. 

The one partial exception to this principle is that home insurance will also cover your legal liabilities to other people. But that only means covering the cost of damage that were you not insured you would legally be required to pay for yourself. Your insurance will pay for damage that was just somehow connected to you or that you feel vaguely obliged to pay for. (Again, it's there to protect you, not to protect your neighbour). And legally you are generally only liable for damage to other people's property which is caused by your negligence.

Negligence means failure to take the level of care which can be expected a normal, reasonable person. Statements like "You are legally responsible for anything that happens in your house..." are just flat out wrong. It would obviously not be reasonable to hold people liable, potentially for unlimited amounts of money, for things that they could have done little or nothing to prevent.

So your insurer would not pay for damage to your neighbour's property simply because the fire started in your house. It would depend entirely on how blameworthy you were. If you started a bonfire two feet from your neighbour's porch and left it unattended, that's probably negligence, so your insurer would probably cover it. However if the fire was caused by, say, a faulty toaster there's no chance of you being liable or your insurer paying unless you had done something particularly stupid, like using it again after it had already caught fire once.

Obviously the OP hasn't said exactly how the fire started. However he says that it was a pure accident and that he's been advised that he's not obliged to pay, so we can only take his word for that. And so if he did have insurance, the only difference that it would make would be that he could refer the neighbour to his insurer, who would politely tell the neighbour to get stuffed, rather than the OP having to do it himself.

Or tl;dr: If you are going to be sanctimonious about the OP's lack of insurance, at least try to have some understanding of what insurance does and doesn't cover.

(There are a few exceptions to the principle that liability only follows from negligence, mostly involving things which are inherently very risky. Dangerous wild animals is the classic one. If you choose to keep a tiger in your back garden and it escapes and eats someone, you are liable first the harm it causes - even if the reason it escaped is that a meteorite fell out of the sky and damaged the cage. However a toaster is not a tiger and to avoid being liable for any damage that it causes you only have to take the level of care that a reasonable person takes with a toaster (ie not much)).

ffsno

It depends what sort of person you are. It basically serves you right for not having insurance. You plonker Rodney....

gloriouslyhappy

Grumpyretiree said:

You have a moral responsibility to pay. If they claim on their insurance it will generally be factored into their renewal premiums for up to 5 years. They deserve not to experience any financial loss and the only way to achieve this is for you to meet the cost. 

Get some insurance as it is folly not to. 

Well they won't claim on their insurance as the damage is the same amount as their policy excess, £300. OP could make a gesture of goodwill and offer half for the sake of good neighbourly relations, but is not obliged to do so.

shoeaddict2310

Nope, that's why they have insurance. It's not your responsibility to pay for the damages to their house (unless they where Intentional).. 

Saragon

Of course you should pay.
the fire was in your house. Accident or not it happened on your property. If you had insurance they would claim against your insurance and as you don’t it makes you personally liable.
Do the right thing not put a wedge resentment and mistrust between you and your neighbour.