Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • liamnick
    • By liamnick 9th Apr 18, 9:34 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    liamnick
    repossessed neighbours house
    • #1
    • 9th Apr 18, 9:34 PM
    repossessed neighbours house 9th Apr 18 at 9:34 PM
    Our house was recently flooded by our neighbours house which has been repossessed by the mortgage company. The water tank burst in the cold weather and managed to come through our house in to the hallway,kitchen and front room. I have had to pay out the excess on our insurance and getting the work done. Can we claim back of the repossessed house mortgage company? The house has been empty for more than a year and it will probably start to smell next door soon.
    any advice please?
    liam[/SIZE]
Page 1
    • bengalknights
    • By bengalknights 9th Apr 18, 9:51 PM
    • 4,421 Posts
    • 1,625 Thanks
    bengalknights
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 9:51 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 9:51 PM
    Yes you can pursue this through your insurerss to chase them for it, as that is why you pay them.
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 9th Apr 18, 11:29 PM
    • 6,886 Posts
    • 6,806 Thanks
    eddddy
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:29 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:29 PM
    To be successful in a claim, you would have to show that the mortgage company was negligent.

    Did the tank burst because of the cold weather?

    You could try arguing that it was negligent to leave a house empty and unheated (especially when exceptionally cold weather was forecast) - without draining down the water tank.
    • MalMonroe
    • By MalMonroe 10th Apr 18, 12:42 AM
    • 70 Posts
    • 62 Thanks
    MalMonroe
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 18, 12:42 AM
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 18, 12:42 AM
    Yes, liamnick said it was because of the cold, and so the mortgage company should definitely be liable.
    • Blibble
    • By Blibble 10th Apr 18, 7:59 AM
    • 474 Posts
    • 828 Thanks
    Blibble
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:59 AM
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:59 AM
    Yes you can pursue this through your insurerss to chase them for it, as that is why you pay them.
    Originally posted by bengalknights
    Yes, liamnick said it was because of the cold, and so the mortgage company should definitely be liable.
    Originally posted by MalMonroe
    No. How is the cold the result of the mortgage lender's negligence?

    An insurable event (escape of water) occurred to your property. You are insured for this. You are not insured for your excess fee, and this could only be recovered from a third party if a reasonable party taking reasonable precautions could have foreseen the issue arising? If you can prove that the mortgage lender was negligent as per this definition in any way, then best of luck to you, however I think it would be trickier than it first seems.
    Wedding fund - 4025.92 (2127.07)
    OP fund - 1859.60 (0)
    Emergency fund - 150.00
    • maisie cat
    • By maisie cat 10th Apr 18, 8:11 AM
    • 539 Posts
    • 642 Thanks
    maisie cat
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:11 AM
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:11 AM
    If the bank concerned also sells insurance, see what the terms say about leaving a property empty long term.
    • bertiewhite
    • By bertiewhite 10th Apr 18, 8:19 AM
    • 1,225 Posts
    • 1,368 Thanks
    bertiewhite
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:19 AM
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:19 AM
    Yes, liamnick said it was because of the cold
    Originally posted by MalMonroe
    Not quite....

    The water tank burst in the cold weather
    Originally posted by liamnick
    Sorry, pedant alert.
    • moneyistooshorttomention
    • By moneyistooshorttomention 10th Apr 18, 8:59 AM
    • 16,574 Posts
    • 45,756 Thanks
    moneyistooshorttomention
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:59 AM
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:59 AM
    I would have thought any risk reasonably foreseeable by a decent surveyor (note I said "decent") is one that the mortgage company should have foreseen.

    When I bought my current house - it had been empty for a few months - but the (not so decent) surveyor I had said that the water tank needed to be switched off and drained in order to prevent any possible problems. Hence I duly "asked" the vendor to do so - and it was.
    ****************
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 10th Apr 18, 4:16 PM
    • 6,886 Posts
    • 6,806 Thanks
    eddddy
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 4:16 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 4:16 PM
    No. How is the cold the result of the mortgage lender's negligence?
    Originally posted by Blibble
    You're getting confused.

    Very cold weather was forecast. The mortgage company were responsible for an empty, unheated property.

    In those circumstances, a reasonable person would have drained the water system and water tank. i.e. it was negligent not to drain it.

    (In fact, when properties are repossessed, mortgage companies almost always drain water systems - for this kind of reason. I suspect that somebody 'slipped up')

    Any insurance company, surveyor, estate agent or other property professional would advise draining the tank in those circumstances.
    • Blibble
    • By Blibble 10th Apr 18, 7:24 PM
    • 474 Posts
    • 828 Thanks
    Blibble
    You're getting confused.

    Very cold weather was forecast. The mortgage company were responsible for an empty, unheated property.

    In those circumstances, a reasonable person would have drained the water system and water tank. i.e. it was negligent not to drain it.

    (In fact, when properties are repossessed, mortgage companies almost always drain water systems - for this kind of reason. I suspect that somebody 'slipped up')

    Any insurance company, surveyor, estate agent or other property professional would advise draining the tank in those circumstances.
    Originally posted by eddddy
    I agree that the tank should have been drained, my point was more trying to suggest that it would be very difficult and laboursome to prove negligence. Perhaps "how is the cold weather the result of the mortgage lender's negligence" was a tad flippant.
    Wedding fund - 4025.92 (2127.07)
    OP fund - 1859.60 (0)
    Emergency fund - 150.00
    • TrickyDicky101
    • By TrickyDicky101 10th Apr 18, 7:59 PM
    • 3,125 Posts
    • 2,066 Thanks
    TrickyDicky101
    I agree that the tank should have been drained, my point was more trying to suggest that it would be very difficult and laboursome to prove negligence. Perhaps "how is the cold weather the result of the mortgage lender's negligence" was a tad flippant.
    Originally posted by Blibble
    I agree - it may be a good idea that draining the tank would reduce risk in the event of a freeze but to suggest negligence is too strong and there is no certainty that court action on that basis would succeed.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,960Posts Today

9,146Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin