Should I trouble my insurance if Direct Line will not help?

Should I trouble my insurance if Direct Line will not help?

7:36 AM, 24th December 2018, About 5 years ago 16

Text Size

I have a 1 bed ground floor flat with one other flat above. The tenant called to say there was water coming through the ceiling and he contacted the owner occupier of the upstairs flat who confirmed they had a leak and had an emergency plumber on the way. I went to inspect the damage the following day and took pictures.

The owner of the upstairs flat called me with a Direct line reference number, he told them he was concerned about the damage to my flat and asked how they would go about getting it repaired.

He was surprised to be told by Direct line that he wasn’t necessarily liable for the damage to my flat but to give me the reference number anyway.

I contacted Direct line to be asked why I was holding their client liable! I supplied them with pictures and asked if I should supply quotes?

They disregarded this question and went back to their mantra of why I was holding their client responsible, whilst suggesting I seek independent legal advice.

I am insured with 118’s broker but I thought this would be straightforward and do not want to raise my premiums by making a claim.

In short I could fix the damage myself for about £200, the damage is in a cupboard so is not affecting my tenant.

Do I get my insurance involved and if I do will I need to pay my £250 excess? Do I pursue Direct line in court?

I am sure many of you have been there before and as ever I would value you safe advice.

I realise it’s only a few hundred quid and part of me is inclined to let it go…………. suck it up and move on…….but,the other part of me is inclined to contact their CEO and ask his opinion. This approach has been successful for me in the past with Currys, a new washing machine delivered and installed within 3 days.

Many thanks

Jim


Share This Article


Comments

Seething Landlord

21:34 PM, 24th December 2018, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Good Plan at 24/12/2018 - 19:55
Your "advice" is wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start. Have you actually read the case that I referred to previously - Transco PLC v Stockport MBC? If not, I suggest that you do so. You appear to be saying that the fact that damage has been caused is all that is necessary to establish a claim against the third party. This is categorically not the case. The claimant must prove negligence or other breach of a duty owed to him by the defendant.

You start by saying that Jim is "not claiming off his own insurance policy" and later that if his attempt to get the neighbour to pay fails he should then claim via his own building insurance, who will then contact the neighbour's insurance (I think you mean insurers). These statements are mutually incompatible. Insurers will only do this in exercise of their subrogation rights and if they are so misguided as to think that there is a valid claim against the neighbour (they will not be).

Your third option is that "Jim can sue for liable" whatever that is supposed to mean. In order to mount a claim in the courts he would have to establish a cause of action and prove that the defendant is liable for his losses. As previously stated there is little hope of success.
Finally, you say that insurers will not deal with the "victim" directly. Wrong again. Direct Line have already shown their willingness to deal direct by asking the claimant to specify on what grounds it is considered that their insured is liable. Insurers spend much of their time dealing direct with claimants or their legal representatives.

AA

9:29 AM, 26th December 2018, About 5 years ago

Good plan is clueless regarding property law. S/he thinks its the same as making a claim on a car accident.

Seething Landlord

11:55 AM, 26th December 2018, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by AA at 26/12/2018 - 09:29
I think it's more a question of ignorance of the law of torts.

Puzzler

10:41 AM, 27th December 2018, About 5 years ago

Seething Landlord is correct, have just been through this process and unless you can prove negligence (very difficult) it's nothing to do with the upper flat. How you proceed on your own or your own insurer is up to you. I am surprised that Jason says otherwise.

Michael Barnes

15:17 PM, 28th December 2018, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 24/12/2018 - 21:34
The claimant must prove negligence or other breach of a duty owed to him by the defendant.

There may be clauses in the lease that specify a duty that has not been observed.

AA

16:56 PM, 29th December 2018, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 28/12/2018 - 15:17
That would be between him and his LL.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now