Trades causing damage to neighbour property
Discussion
Recently had a new boiler fitted in a flat I own, at the same time I decided to get all of the radiator valves changed.
plumbers done a great job other than when changing one of the valves some water leaked onto the ceiling below, ran along and though a light fitting in the flat below and therefore on to the carpet below.
Lady downstairs spoke to the plumber who stopped the leak and asked her to leave it to dry out the day.
Lady downstairs suggested that she was calling her insurance assessor in as the carpet she had down is wrecked and had a life time warranty. I informed the plumber and he want down to take a further look and confirmed he couldn't find any damage, said there was a clean patch on an otherwise disgusting carpet but suspected his insurers wouldn't be remotely interested.
What is the correct way to proceed with this? should I ask her insurer to deal with the plumbers insurer directly? I'm slightly concerned that she'll just present me with a ludicrous bill for made up problems as she'll see it has her right to do well out of the issue, which I'll then pass on to the plumber who won't be remotely interested.
For the avoidance of doubt the Lady downstairs is the most untrustworthy, selfish old woman I have ever met, who did everything she could do make life awkward for the 10 years I lived there.
plumbers done a great job other than when changing one of the valves some water leaked onto the ceiling below, ran along and though a light fitting in the flat below and therefore on to the carpet below.
Lady downstairs spoke to the plumber who stopped the leak and asked her to leave it to dry out the day.
Lady downstairs suggested that she was calling her insurance assessor in as the carpet she had down is wrecked and had a life time warranty. I informed the plumber and he want down to take a further look and confirmed he couldn't find any damage, said there was a clean patch on an otherwise disgusting carpet but suspected his insurers wouldn't be remotely interested.
What is the correct way to proceed with this? should I ask her insurer to deal with the plumbers insurer directly? I'm slightly concerned that she'll just present me with a ludicrous bill for made up problems as she'll see it has her right to do well out of the issue, which I'll then pass on to the plumber who won't be remotely interested.
For the avoidance of doubt the Lady downstairs is the most untrustworthy, selfish old woman I have ever met, who did everything she could do make life awkward for the 10 years I lived there.
Edited by andye30m3 on Friday 19th February 13:35
Edited by andye30m3 on Friday 19th February 13:45
andye30m3 said:
Recently had a new boiler fitted in a flat I own, at the same time I decided to get all of the radiator valves changed.
plumbers done a great job other than when changing one of the valves some water leaked onto the ceiling below, ran along and though a light fitting in the flat below and therefore on to the carpet below.
Lady downstairs spoke to the plumber who stopped the leak and asked her to leave it to dry out the day.
Lady downstairs suggested that she was calling her insurance assessor in as the carpet she had down is wrecked and had a life time warranty. I informed the plumber and he want down to take a further look and confirmed he could find any damage, said there was a clean patch on an otherwise discussing carpet but suspected his insurers wouldn't be remotely interested.
What is the correct way to proceed with this? should I ask her insurer to deal with the plumbers insurer directly? I'm slightly concerned that she'll just present me with a ludicrous bill for made up problems as she'll see it has her right to do well out of the issue, which I'll then pass on to the plumber who won't be remotely interested.
For the avoidance of doubt the Lady downstairs is the most untrustworthy, selfish old woman I have ever met, who did everything she could do make life awkward for the 10 years I lived there.
Have a chat with her about it...plumbers done a great job other than when changing one of the valves some water leaked onto the ceiling below, ran along and though a light fitting in the flat below and therefore on to the carpet below.
Lady downstairs spoke to the plumber who stopped the leak and asked her to leave it to dry out the day.
Lady downstairs suggested that she was calling her insurance assessor in as the carpet she had down is wrecked and had a life time warranty. I informed the plumber and he want down to take a further look and confirmed he could find any damage, said there was a clean patch on an otherwise discussing carpet but suspected his insurers wouldn't be remotely interested.
What is the correct way to proceed with this? should I ask her insurer to deal with the plumbers insurer directly? I'm slightly concerned that she'll just present me with a ludicrous bill for made up problems as she'll see it has her right to do well out of the issue, which I'll then pass on to the plumber who won't be remotely interested.
For the avoidance of doubt the Lady downstairs is the most untrustworthy, selfish old woman I have ever met, who did everything she could do make life awkward for the 10 years I lived there.
The plumber caused the alleged damage - he's admitted the leak was his fault - & needs to be speaking to his insurers.
Anything that comes your way needs to be referred to him.
If the old dear doesn't want to discuss the matter in a sensible manner then you may need to wait until her claim for a complete refurb of her flat arrives.
Anything that comes your way needs to be referred to him.
If the old dear doesn't want to discuss the matter in a sensible manner then you may need to wait until her claim for a complete refurb of her flat arrives.
matchmaker said:
andye30m3 said:
matchmaker said:
Have a chat with her about it...
You don't talk to her, she shouts at you like a 5 year old until you finally get a word in to try and make forward progress when she says she's had enough and hangs up. pinchmeimdreamin said:
Just give her the Plumbers insurance details and let them do what he pays them for.
In her latest e-mail she's told me she refuses to deal with the plumber and that I need to pay for it and then go after the plumber. I could understand this if the plumber was at all aggressive or unreasonable but he's a really nice guy.
Edited by andye30m3 on Friday 19th February 13:54
DuraAce said:
I won't even ask why you have each others email address!
I'd tell her once, and once only, that she needs to deal with your plumber. Its not your issue/fault.
After that I'd simply ignore any further communication. No way on earth would I be paying out first then chasing my plumber.
Unfortunately, as the owner of the flat, the OP is liable and she is right to be chasing the OP.I'd tell her once, and once only, that she needs to deal with your plumber. Its not your issue/fault.
After that I'd simply ignore any further communication. No way on earth would I be paying out first then chasing my plumber.
Whether or not the OP can then claim against the plumber is between the plumber and himself.
I'm not a lawyer.
But it is not clear cut.
This was posted on Landlordzone by someone in insurance claims:
Having worked in a household claims role for over 4 years... It all depends on liability. If the leak was caused by him leaving his bath running and it overflowing - he was negligent and it is his fault, therefore his insurers pay. If it was a pipe that rusted through ( and he couldn't have known it was going to happen - for example it was hidden under a floor board) and he fixed it as soon as he knew it was leaking... He is not negligent and you need to claim under your own policy. I reccomend you claim on yours and then let your insurer sort it out. If they recover their costs then it won't affect your policy (and normally your excess will be refunded too)
As it is, the plumber was potentially negligent - why did he not drain the system down first?
As you instructed him, I expect the liability to start with you, even your insurer claims from the plumber.
But it is not clear cut.
This was posted on Landlordzone by someone in insurance claims:
Having worked in a household claims role for over 4 years... It all depends on liability. If the leak was caused by him leaving his bath running and it overflowing - he was negligent and it is his fault, therefore his insurers pay. If it was a pipe that rusted through ( and he couldn't have known it was going to happen - for example it was hidden under a floor board) and he fixed it as soon as he knew it was leaking... He is not negligent and you need to claim under your own policy. I reccomend you claim on yours and then let your insurer sort it out. If they recover their costs then it won't affect your policy (and normally your excess will be refunded too)
As it is, the plumber was potentially negligent - why did he not drain the system down first?
As you instructed him, I expect the liability to start with you, even your insurer claims from the plumber.
Mandat said:
DuraAce said:
I won't even ask why you have each others email address!
I'd tell her once, and once only, that she needs to deal with your plumber. Its not your issue/fault.
After that I'd simply ignore any further communication. No way on earth would I be paying out first then chasing my plumber.
Unfortunately, as the owner of the flat, the OP is liable and she is right to be chasing the OP.I'd tell her once, and once only, that she needs to deal with your plumber. Its not your issue/fault.
After that I'd simply ignore any further communication. No way on earth would I be paying out first then chasing my plumber.
Whether or not the OP can then claim against the plumber is between the plumber and himself.
I've asked what damage has been caused, to which she's replied that the special carpet she has in the kitchen has got wet and she's been told it could cause mildew because the water will have got to the bonding layer. So as far as I can make out as yet there is no damage but a concern of damage at a later date, we'll see what the carpet assessor says in his report, again slightly concerned the the carpet assessor is actually a carpet salesman.
looking at the manufactures website one of the main selling points seams to be it's 'completely waterproof'
Also to what degree would I be liable if it's already had many years of wear? as a landlord I can't claim the full value of a carpet if its been down years.
If the plumbers insurance wouldn't entertain a claim because the carpet is already buggered then should I?.
If it's not already obvious I really do dislike this woman since I've lived there she's down nothing but moan, so far we've been asked not to use the car park, not to use washing machine, not to use taxi's to get home, complaints about the noise from a cat, complaints about me wanting to restrict pets (which is in our lease) due to noise, complaints every single time I've had any trades in do anything. If visitors come round she'll stand at the window staring at them.
I do think she's trying it on and don't want to be put in a position where I end up paying for someone else's mistake, especially if she benefits
You clearly know what the old bat is like so I'd go round on the pretext of sorting something out but use the visit to gather photographic evidence instead. When things blow up you then have evidence to screw her over (I mean put her straight). As far as I'm aware a householder cannot be liable for works carried out by a trader on his property and I did work in liability insurance some years ago. Why do traders have their own liability insurance otherwise?
Once you have your evidence ll het there's no damage evident and if she wants to take it up with the plumber here's his address. Matter closed won't be discussed any further!
Once you have your evidence ll het there's no damage evident and if she wants to take it up with the plumber here's his address. Matter closed won't be discussed any further!
elanfan said:
You clearly know what the old bat is like so I'd go round on the pretext of sorting something out but use the visit to gather photographic evidence instead. When things blow up you then have evidence to screw her over (I mean put her straight). As far as I'm aware a householder cannot be liable for works carried out by a trader on his property and I did work in liability insurance some years ago. Why do traders have their own liability insurance otherwise?
Negligent vs non-negligence?As for capturing evidence without consent...
elanfan said:
As far as I'm aware a householder cannot be liable for works carried out by a trader on his property and I did work in liability insurance some years ago. Why do traders have their own liability insurance otherwise?
As a Surveyor, I come across neighbourly and construction disputes all the time, and the householder (owner of the property) is specifically liable for damage to neighbouring properties that might be caused by his workmen / traders. The traders are working as agents for the homeowner and working on the owner's land and property. The homeonwer is ultimately responsible for what happens on their land / property. In the case of negligent damage, the neighbour makes a claim against the homeowner, and the homeowner can counterclaim against their tradesperson. Traders have liability insurance to indemnify themselves against claims, much in the same way that anyone seeks to protect themselves by taking out insurance.
Mandat said:
As a Surveyor, I come across neighbourly and construction disputes all the time, and the householder (owner of the property) is specifically liable for damage to neighbouring properties that might be caused by his workmen / traders. The traders are working as agents for the homeowner and working on the owner's land and property. The homeonwer is ultimately responsible for what happens on their land / property.
In the case of negligent damage, the neighbour makes a claim against the homeowner, and the homeowner can counterclaim against their tradesperson. Traders have liability insurance to indemnify themselves against claims, much in the same way that anyone seeks to protect themselves by taking out insurance.
How would you recommend I proceed? we're not talking all that large sums of money, more principal. In the case of negligent damage, the neighbour makes a claim against the homeowner, and the homeowner can counterclaim against their tradesperson. Traders have liability insurance to indemnify themselves against claims, much in the same way that anyone seeks to protect themselves by taking out insurance.
Given that the damage she is claiming isn't actually there yet should I offer to reassess if there actually turns out to be a problem but refuse to pay monies until then? to me this seams reasonable.
at the moment I think she's got an issue with me and just wants some cash.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff