ChrisR said:
Softus have you exp of ins cos going after a plumber?
Never seen it happen. I didn't mean to imply that I had - I was mocking because of the all-too-familiar pomposity of Agile's post.
I've seen an insurance company pursue an uninsured car driver for money, but that was in a case where the fault was not disputed. The injured party also pursued, by proxy, for personal injury, but failed to make a court application in time, therefore that element of the claim fell apart.
By the sound of things, this was a compression joint.
I would expect so, but it would be nice to know exactly what it was and why it popped off, especially if it was a tank-fed service.
We've all seen unmade connections last for years. How long is a plumber liable for? A day, a month, a year, 2 years? Do clauses in contracts make any difference? Does some vague idea of reasonableness override? I doubt the latter.
Reasonableness does become important.
It's important to separate out the questions bound up in all of this:
1. How long do you have to discover that a fault exists?
2. How do you determine fault?
3. How long is a person liable for something that is clearly their fault?
4. How long do you have to make a claim?
If a compression joint leaked one day after being made, the plumber left an invoice and isn't fly-by-night, has insurance, and the customer notified him immediately, but he denied liability, and was taken to court within six years, then I would expect the plumber to be be held liable.
However, determining fault is not always straightforward, which, IMHO, is the reason that insurance companies don't pursue plumbers. It's doubly difficult when the evidence has been removed in order to fix the leak quickly.
To complicate it further, a latent fault may lie undiscovered for years, then suddenly leak. This makes it harder, commercially, to point the finger, even though, morally, it's clear who's at fault.
In a case where the plumber fesses up, whether or not he has insurance, he is
without doubt liable for the damage resulting from a failure to use reasonable care and skill. You can't contract out of your statutory liability.
Human error is permitted, but a reasonably careful and skillful plumber will always test his work in order discover his errors. Who would dream of turning on the mains and walking away without checking all new joints?
If you believe that the plumber is liable, and
if he has been told, but has refused to pay up, then you have a statutory right to apply to a court for a period of up to six years. If remedy for personal injury is being sought then the period is three years. However, delaying unnecessarily, i.e. without good reason, whilst not affecting your rights, can weaken your case, because judging on a disputed claim is all about the balance of probabilities, and courage of conviction is a factor in judging credibility.
If I were the plumber, then I'd make sure of having insurance. I suppose I'd also offer to work off the debt rather than pay the money.
If I were an ordinary punter I would claim from my own insurance company and then claim my uninsured losses, including the policy excess, from the plumber. I would tell him up front that this is what I'm doing. If the insurance company wants to pursue him for the rest, then that's up to them.
You have the option to just inform your own insurance company and proceed directly to court against the plumber. The problem there is that you have to stand the cost of repairs while the case is settled, and the risk is that you could lose the case, and in the meantime lose the ability to claim on your own insurance.
