We had a leak.................

[Albumen]

Agile is dead right. As a matter of fact this doesn't really deserve to be in a plumbing forum.

Buy a notebook from Staples. Write up everything that happened in a 'diary' format. Note when you make any notes, and from now on note every conversation and event, contemporaneously if you can.

Get quotes for the work. Send 7 day warning letter, then issue, if she doesn't pay up.

Don't let her appoint 'her mate' who's a builder. Make her do it properly.

Although many people, including me sometimes, have a poor view of lawyers, I think the small claims court is brilliant. It's there for exactly this sort of situation and when I used it to recover money it was a doddle.

The main thing is that you have to be prepared to go to court, in your own mind as much as possible. So anything you write, or say for that matter, may be read out in a court. So bear that in mind. My missus is a lawyer her advice is that if you write inflammatory things they look bad in court.

Stick to the facts. The loss you have suffered, whose fault it was, and what needs to happen for the loss to be rectified. It's really really simple, and the facts are all the law is interested in. Leave out any personal stuff.

 

[Agile]

Although many people, including me sometimes, have a poor view of lawyers, I think the small claims court is brilliant. It's there for exactly this sort of situation and when I used it to recover money it was a doddle.

The main thing is that you have to be prepared to go to court, in your own mind as much as possible. So anything you write, or say for that matter, may be read out in a court. So bear that in mind. My missus is a lawyer her advice is that if you write inflammatory things they look bad in court.

You may not be very safe saying that!

Of course to use the simple on line claim form you dont need any lawer. Even if you did you would not be able to claim the legal costs. You can include the court fees in your claim and any out of pocket expenses like telephone calls but nothing for the time you spend.

Tony

 

[ChrisR]

Insurance is often a bit of a scam. In one case of a CH pipe bursting they wouldn't pay because the cover was only for accidental damage to pipework. The Landlord though he "had insurance" but had never read the small print. WHo would actually WANT that insurance?

I think you'll have to talk to your own insurers, and get estimates for repairs to your decor etc.
I'd be after an amount for your "suffering" too.
You won't be able to prove anything about her negligence or that of her plumber, but it IS her responsibility even if she's blameless.
Perhaps a call to the C.A.B would be a good idea. I found the online small claims procedure confusing, and had more questions than answers.

 

[Alison556]

Thanks guys. Sorry this has went way off the plumbing question I originally had. Every time she puts her washing machine on, my heart sinks - I'm paranoid now that she's gonna flood us again (and my new kitchen goes in in a couple of weeks and if she floods that, I'm likely to kill her).

Agile, do you mean that I write to her insurers direct? According to her, they wouldn't deal with me and I had to claim off my own and that's what was worrying me - I didn't want left out of pocket and with a claim against me if her insurers got funny.

Excellent advice though. I'll get drafting a letter out straight away.

 

[D_Hailsham]

The only insurer you can claim against is your own. Provided they accept the claim, the only thing you will have to pay is your excess. You can then make a claim against your neighbour for the excess. If she does not pay up then take her to the Small Claims Court.

I did not understand what your insurer was saying about the claim would be rejected by the neighbours insurer's as it was accidental. I would have thought that it came under the heading of Public Liability.

 

[Alison556]

I didn't really understand what the woman at the insurers was meaning either, but she said that even though my neighbour accepted liability, if her insurers deemed that it was an accident and beyond her control then they wouldn't need to pay out. That was the tactic they used when she flooded me before - she didn't know about the leaking pipe and it was beyond her control so she wasn't liable.

The world of insurance sure is a difficult one to understand.

 

[seco services]

(and my new kitchen goes in in a couple of weeks and if she floods that, I'm likely to kill her).

just go and punch her face in

 

[Agile]

Oh dear!

How do I get you to understand?

You have to claim form HER ! SHE is the responsible person!

If her insurers indemnify her thats to her advantage but not your problem.

Quite simply, if anything in her flat damages yours then its her responsibility and all you need to prove is that the damage occured. A video is the best evidence showing the water leaking! Its not relevant to you what happened in her flat!

Tony

 

[D_Hailsham]

Quite simply, if anything in her flat damages yours then its her responsibility and all you need to prove is that the damage occured. A video is the best evidence showing the water leaking! Its not relevant to you what happened in her flat!

I agree completely.

The only problem with claiming directly from the third party is that they may not want to pay or be able to pay for the repairs. Which is why I advocate claiming of your own insurance for the bulk of the cost and from the third party for the excess. If she coughs up the £100 or so then the job is done; if not, then take her to the small claims court.

Don't forget that your insurance company will want to get their money back, so they will probably send her a bill as well - which she will pass to her insurance co; and the two insurance co's will fight it out.

If you claim the whole cost from the third party and she passes your claim to her insurer, they will immediately ask if you have any insurance which covers the event. The same question will be asked if you go to the Small Claims Court.

 

[Agile]

Don't forget that your insurance company will want to get their money back, so they will probably send her a bill as well - which she will pass to her insurance co; and the two insurance co's will fight it out.

If you claim the whole cost from the third party and she passes your claim to her insurer, they will immediately ask if you have any insurance which covers the event. The same question will be asked if you go to the Small Claims Court.

I have never heard of any insurance trying to reclaim the costs from any other company. That often means in the motor field that you can risk losing your exces just because your company and the other have a knock for knock agreement or just because both cars are with the same company!

I dont think the court is entitled act any differently even if you did have any insurance. There is no legal requirement for you to claim from your insurance if you dont want to.

Tony

 

[D_Hailsham]

I have never heard of any insurance trying to reclaim the costs from any other company.

The first rule of insurance is to avoid paying a claim; but, if you have to, find someone else to pick up the bill.

That often means in the motor field that you can risk losing your exces just because your company and the other have a knock for knock agreement or just because both cars are with the same company!

All a knock for knock agreement means is that each side pays their own costs, irrespective of blame. Provided they can agree who is to blame, the innocent party will have their excess paid by the guilty party's insurer and will not lose his NCB. This will be true even if both parties are insured by the same company.

There is no legal requirement for you to claim from your insurance if you don't want to.

Maybe not, but many insurance policies contain a clause requiring you to inform them of every insurable event and giving them the right to deal with it as they want.

Something to think about!

Many years ago I witnessed an accident between two cars. Some time later I had to attend Court as one of the drivers was being charged with driving without due care and attention. They got off.

Several months after that, I was again asked to attend Court as the Insurance Companies were fighting over liability. The person who got off at the first hearing was found to be the guilty party

Logical?
[/u]

 

[Agile]

Something to think about!

Many years ago I witnessed an accident between two cars. Some time later I had to attend Court as one of the drivers was being charged with driving without due care and attention. They got off.

Several months after that, I was again asked to attend Court as the Insurance Companies were fighting over liability. The person who got off at the first hearing was found to be the guilty party

Logical?
[/u]

Quite logical as the burden of proof is greater in a criminal case than a civil financial liability ( where it can be aportioned too ).

I have been called to several plumbing problems where considerable damage has been caused by leaking water. In most cases there was either total or considerable blame attached to someone who had done work there shortly beforehand.

In none of the cases had the insurers made any attempt to chase the bad workman for damages.

In fact I have never heard of an insurer chasing a workman for the consequences of his poor workmanship. That includes anything I have read on forums.

Tony

 

[IJWS15]

Insurer's recovering what they have paid you out as a claim from a third party who was at fault is called subrogation. Quite common but us policy holders don't normally know it is happening.

 

[Agile]

Insurer's recovering what they have paid you out as a claim from a third party who was at fault is called subrogation. Quite common but us policy holders don't normally know it is happening.

I think that a plumber would know about it if he was paying for the damage caused by his bad work!

I have read a lot of plumbing forums and NEVER seen anyone mentioning this.

Nor have the insurers chased anyone where I have been the one to do the investigation of what went wrong.

Tony

 

[Chudley]

Insurer's recovering what they have paid you out as a claim from a third party who was at fault is called subrogation. Quite common but us policy holders don't normally know it is happening.

Actually, subrogation refers to the insurer assuming the rights and liabilities of the policyholder/claimant when a claim is being made against their policy for an insurable event.

As part of this, the insurer assumes the right to pursue a responsible party for their costs, in place of the policyholder who would have had that right previously had they not claiming for cost on their own policy.

i.e. If you drive your car into mine, and I claim on my policy for the cost of repair to my vehicle, under subrogation, my insurer assumes my rights to reclaim costs paid out from the responsible party (you). If I didn't claim via my own policy the rights would not be subrogated to my insurer. In the same sense, your insurance would subrogate your rights & liability, and therefore pay my insurance for the costs incurred. Under a knock for knock scenario, both insurers costs are pooled and split via a % liability scenario agreed upon by both insurers. Therefore both excesses are paid and lost, and both policies see a claim being made.

In the realm of household insurance, this will still apply - the question here is what law governs the right & responsibility of causing damage to property through a broken pipe, poor workmanship etc? And furthermore, is it economic to pursue & prove? My background is vehicle insurance so am not clear on this point!