National Entity poor work led to rat infestation

Boohoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105331#Comment_82105331

How will the insurance deal with an issue that is I think is nearly 4 years old?

Wouldn't the OP have had to tell the insurance company at the renewal)new policy that home was in good condition and no ongoing issues or something like that.

I am only asking as I don't know the correct answer and maybe someone more knowledgeable would like to give this some input.

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105391#Comment_82105391

I think it's the only route available, and worth a try. Since reading the original thread, I don't think OP has a case at all, but she's got to try something more proactive that trying to convince us what the problem is and who's to blame.

ellymoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105391#Comment_82105391

This is what I think too. Although the decking issues happened this year.

I don't know why quotation marks are being used around "lawyer friend". He's a lawyer and this is what he's suggested. He said to go through insurance if I can but given that this all started years ago and I only found out who is to blame now I don't think it's feasible. I'm giving a shot anyway.

The contractors had a strange idea of a sewer pipe, not me. The pipe leading to the sewer pipe was broken and the contractors didn't fill the ground in which meant the rats could get out of that pipe.

I'm not trying to convince anyone on here; I'm trying to understand how negligence is not negligence but nobody can explain that and is just being snide which isn't really in line with the Ts and Cs of the forum... Or does that not count if you don't understand the consequences of being snide? (Joke)

I'm not letting it lie either way but will see what insurance and my information request bring. Probably nothing but there's no harm in trying.

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105566#Comment_82105566

The point is that from what you've described, there isn't solid evidence that there has been negligence. From my recollection, all you've got to go on is a verbal comment by some workmen that they left something in a state they shouldn't have done, and the "entity" doesn't seem willing to back that in writing. Even if they did, there doesn't seem to be any firm evidence that it's caused the chain of events that's led to the rat problem you describe. Rats aren't trapped in sewers waiting to escape as soon as someone lets them. A sewer by definition has to be "open" at various points, and any number of things can create conditions where rats will proliferate. It's my view that what you have is a situation where there's been some construction work and then around the same time there's been a rat problem. You have naturally linked the two whereas it seems more likely to be a case of coincidence, not consequence.

That said, I can only go on your written account of the circumstance and events. I'm not there at the property, and it's difficult to picture what you've described. If you have property and possessions damage arising from a rat problem, then that's a matter for your insurance. Whether they choose to pin it on the recent building work is up to them and the evidence available.

Alderbank

I think the OP's quantum of damages seems to be loss of earnings because knowledge of the rats drove the OP out of her mind and this might possibly have been a contributory factor to the OP consequently losing her job '…If the contractors hadn't lied about there being an "open sewer" outside my house, I may conceivably still have a job, as the stress drove me out of my mind…'

I agree with the contractors that this is too remote to claim. Foreseeability is an important factor in determining negligence. The courts have strict tests for nervous shock which must include a medical diagnosis of a recognized mental illness caused by someone else's negligent or intentional act and the cause (the open sewer and the rats) must be such that a normal person in that same position would likely suffer a psychiatric illness from the shock.

I don't think this meets that threshold.

ellymoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105579#Comment_82105579

Thanks very much for explaining that.I really appreciate it as I couldn't get my head around it at all. The company have admitted at least to the loss adjuster that they didn't do the job properly, so there's that but they haven't admitted to it causing the issue. They've ignored the open sewer nonsense which sent me through the roof so I'm picking up on that regardless.

I'm not looking for loss of earnings. I see that as my issue ultimately; nonetheless this has happened, been incredibly stressful and cost me money I don't have as well as my job. Now I'm left picking up the pieces while nobody takes responsibility for it and I want to fight that.

My insurance company have as I suspected said because this started years ago I can't claim under them but I should talk to their legal department so I'll go on from there.

Thank you to those who gave helpful replies. They are greatly appreciated.

ellymoo

Can you explain more about foreseeability please as I don't understand it? In my view it's irrelevant as to whether they could forsee anything, because they didn't bother doing the job properly. So I genuinely don't understand why it matters whether or not they could forsee something going wrong as a result of not doing the job properly because they should have done it properly in the first place. That's what I can't get my head around. Thanks!

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105727#Comment_82105727

I think it's now a moot point because since Alderbank's helpful post, you've clarified that you aren't seeking to claim loss of earnings.

Boohoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105727#Comment_82105727

https://hallellis.co.uk/remoteness-reasonably-foreseeable-damages/

There is a bit in this link very near the bottom of it about a trench being dug and the hit a pipe that maybe of help to you.

The web page is about foreseeable damages but is a long read and may not be for you as its to lawyerish for me to understand most of it.

ellymoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105753#Comment_82105753

Thank you. That helps a lot. So basically the blokes could claim that they didn't know not bothering to fill in all the concrete would cause an issue despite knowing there was an open pipe down there.

I have 2 more things to try so we shall see.