Earlier this year my husband inherited his parents’ ground floor flat in Edinburgh. We cleared it and cancelled the contents insurance, but retained the buildings insurance with the existing insurer Halifax.
While the property was on the market, the boiler in the upstairs flat sprang a leak. Since that flat was also unoccupied the water flowed for several days before it was discovered. Halifax’s buildings insurance covered the resulting extensive damage to the fabric of the property, but not the fitted carpet that was ruined.
As the sales prospectus for the flat included fitted carpets, we had to pay for a replacement. The policy also had a £100 excess, which we must pay to the contractor carrying out the repairs.
We had intended to sell the property to finance the purchase of another flat but, in the event, had to settle for a much lower price than the valuation. The alternative would have been to lose the property we intended to buy and we have had to take out a mortgage to meet the shortfall.
We have tried to make a claim for our financial losses against the owner of the upstairs flat and his insurers (also Halifax), but we are getting nowhere. Halifax tells us that it cannot discuss this with us and that we must pursue our claim through our own insurers. Neither will it act on our behalf to claim these costs against the upstairs neighbour’s policy.
The most recent communication from Halifax suggests that, in its view, there is no “liability”, nor any “recovery aspect”, since the damage to the boiler was the result of general age/wear and tear.
We cannot understand this. When the water pipes in our own flat sprang a leak, our buildings insurer acted immediately and to the complete satisfaction of our neighbours, reimbursing their policy excess and covering their uninsured losses.
Why does the same principle of “public liability” not apply in the present circumstances? AGL, Edinburgh
You should not be left out of pocket as a result of this incident – particularly as it looks as though either the owner or someone else has been negligent.
Halifax has told you, and us, that it “is not possible to recover this claim under third party liability, as negligence on the neighbour’s part must be proven, which is not the case”.
It added: “We have found the leak from the boiler in the upstairs property was due to natural wear and tear” which your neighbour “could not have reasonably foreseen or prevented”. It says this “wear and tear” argument absolves it from responsibility.
But you could reasonably argue that the boiler was not being inspected regularly, and that the owner was negligent in leaving the flat empty and therefore at risk of causing precisely the problem that arose.
To leave the water turned on is inviting problems that would take a considerable time to emerge, and could be considered negligent.
You have been left £300 out of pocket, and we think many people reading your letter will be amazed that Halifax can stand by this “wear and tear” argument.
We recommend you write to the owner of the property and ask him to pay up. If he refuses, issue a small claims action against him – at which point he may decide to pay up.
Halifax told us that if negligence could be proved it would be up to the contents insurer of the above flat to pay up – which is another company.
But we don’t necessarily agree. Contents policies cover removables, and boilers (and certainly pipes) are not removables and should therefore be the responsibility of the Halifax buildings policy.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, The Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number
