Hi,

Is there anyone who can help on a problem with a leaking shared water supply from a legal and insurance point of view.

We bought our house around two years ago. It a "period" property having being built in the 1700's but only became a separate residence when it was split off from my neighbour's house a couple of decades ago or more, but after at least 1960. A couple of days ago my neighbour said they had a leak in a water pipe and the plumber feared that it was the pipe supplying our water, so he couldn't fix the leak by just cutting it off and sealing it since it went nowhere on my neighbour's side. We've confirmed this is so, though I was not informed when we bought the property that we had such a shared supply, either by by the previous owners or by our conveyancer.

Having talked to the water board about the problem they have informally advised that we should have a separate water supply installed, rather than having the shared supply pipe replaced. The pipe is very old and corroded and we fear that if we merely fix the pipe it will merely give elsewhere, especially since the pipe was designed initially to supply one house and it is now supplying two.

The leak caused some damage to our kitchen wall due to damp affecting the plasterwork so I contacted our insurance company. I was told we were covered for repairing the damage to the wall but not for the cost of repairing the pipe. That was a little annoying but the cost of the latter is most likely minimal. More seriously is that the insurance company loss adjusters are insisting that the laying of a new water supply necessitated by the damage to the shared pipework is "remedial" work or repair and not damage. Hence, they claim we are not covered for such a cost which my require a large amount of external work plus a far from inconsiderable amount of work bringing the water supply into the house (including lifting tiled floors, removing kitchen units etc).

My first question is are they correct in this? Considering the law of cause and effect, the cause being a leaking pipe and the effect (or damage) is to require a new water supply to be laid, I would have expected to be covered for this.

Secondly, the Water Board said that after a certain date planning regulations required all new premises to have a separate supply provided but we can't find the date. Neither can we locate the planning permission for the split in the council's planning archives to ascertain what permission was granted. Does anyone know the relevant year?

Thirdly, might we have a legitimate claim against our conveyancers for not informing us of the situation, the council if planning regs were not correctly applied, or even the prior owners for not disclosing it to our conveyancers?

nwalton2563:

Is there anyone who can help on a problem with a leaking shared water supply from a legal and insurance point of view.

A couple of days ago my neighbour said they had a leak in a water pipe and the plumber feared that it was the pipe supplying our water, so he couldn't fix the leak by just cutting it off and sealing it since it went nowhere on my neighbour's side. The pipe is very old and corroded and we fear that if we merely fix the pipe it will merely give elsewhere, especially since the pipe was designed initially to supply one house and it is now supplying two.

The leak caused some damage to our kitchen wall due to damp affecting the plasterwork so I contacted our insurance company. I was told we were covered for repairing the damage to the wall but not for the cost of repairing the pipe. That was a little annoying but the cost of the latter is most likely minimal. More seriously is that the insurance company loss adjusters are insisting that the laying of a new water supply necessitated by the damage to the shared pipework is "remedial" work or repair and not damage. Hence, they claim we are not covered for such a cost which my require a large amount of external work plus a far from inconsiderable amount of work bringing the water supply into the house (including lifting tiled floors, removing kitchen units etc).

My first question is are they correct in this? Considering the law of cause and effect, the cause being a leaking pipe and the effect (or damage) is to require a new water supply to be laid, I would have expected to be covered for this.

Hi N Walton,

Usually repair to burst pipes are excluded unless the damage was caused because the pipe was frozen. Insurers usually only settle claims for the damage caused by the the burst pipe.

The problem is that the cause was not the leaking pipe, the cause was failure to maintain a 'very old and corroded' pipe. Insurers use the term 'Proximate Cause'. A room in a house is flooded due to the roof not being maintainted and fully watertight, not due to the rain as, if the roof was properly maintained, the flood would not have occured. Technically the insurer could have refused the claim but, instead, they have reduced it.

As far as I can see from what you write, this is remedial work; absolutely! The insurer will not pay out for 'other works' to be carried out further than which they accept liability for. Similarly, if 4 lower kitchen units are damaged for which they accept liability for, but the upper 'matching cupboard units' are not damaged, then they will not pay for the entire units to be replaced... only for those damaged to which they have accepted.

A lot of people will say that these are examples of 'the insurer doing all they can to get out of paying a claim' but this is due to lack of knowledge in this area. A burst pipe, a leaky roof etc. are examples of forseen hazards that should have been attended to in order to prevent a loss. Insurance is there to cover for the unexpected. You could say that you didn't expect the pipe to be so corroded, or had no idea that it was so old. But this is no defence as the insurer will rely on the insured to confirm that 'the property is in good state of repair and will so be maintained' and to undertake any remedial works that need to be carried out. The insurer will rarely see the property until a claim is made, for obvious reasons. There is an element of people not bothering to check the maintenance of their own property and the same people who have the attitude that 'Oh the insurance will cover it'. Fortunately for everybody who pays a premium, this is not the case. Can you imagine if the insurer would cover the examples (Above)? The core principles of insurance would be open to abuse!

NWalton, I do see your point. Honestly I do. Until about 4 years ago, I would have agreed with you and jumped on the same bandwagon! But, now I see it from the other side, I can understand the importance of stringent policy conditions. I'm not saying that insurers get it 100% correct 100% of the time, because they don't... but, unfortunately for you, they seem to be correct in your case.

Probably not the answer you were looking for, sorry. Good luck though.

Mmmm! Many thanks, your points would be perfectly valid save for one fact. The pipe that burst was not on my property but my neighbours. I had no right of access and so no means of maintaining said pipe, even if I had known of its existence which I did not since my solicitors had failed to inform of the shared supply.

nwalton2563

nwalton2563:

Mmmm! Many thanks, your points would be perfectly valid save for one fact. The pipe that burst was not on my property but my neighbours. I had no right of access and so no means of maintaining said pipe, even if I had known of its existence which I did not since my solicitors had failed to inform of the shared supply.

nwalton2563

Very good point! Blimey... there's a complex case lol! I do sympathise, but I can see no way that the insurer should be expected to pay for a new water system that should have been replaced some time ago. It's been a long time since I dealt in property, but the shared supply should have been brought to your attention by some party before the event occurred? If not the solicitor, then the water company?

Sorry, NWalton, hope everything goes well though. Remember to keep your eye out for pipes and roof tiles! TIP: Make sure your home insurance covers for storm damage !!

Ahh! Thanks for the sympathy but there's more fun to be had yet.

About two years ago my neighbour had a meter fitted and found her bills were rather high. Water board came round fitted a second meter knowing that she had been supplying next door as well. So the water board certainly new, and hence almost certainly did the previous owners.

As for planning permissions when we were buying the property our attention was drawn to the loft conversion, which might or might not have planning permission. We were told that the standard fix for this was for the sellers to provide insurance against the council coming round and saying the work was illegal and would have to reverted back esp. since the house is Grade II Iisted in a conservation area. It may be interesting to see if covers us for the property being split without planning permission, not being adhered to or being incorrect by not requiring a separate water supply.

The loss adjusters arrive tomorrow, closely followed by the water board. I suspect it may be close quarter combat.

NWalton2563

nwalton2563:

Ahh! Thanks for the sympathy but there's more fun to be had yet.

About two years ago my neighbour had a meter fitted and found her bills were rather high. Water board came round fitted a second meter knowing that she had been supplying next door as well. So the water board certainly new, and hence almost certainly did the previous owners.

As for planning permissions when we were buying the property our attention was drawn to the loft conversion, which might or might not have planning permission. We were told that the standard fix for this was for the sellers to provide insurance against the council coming round and saying the work was illegal and would have to reverted back esp. since the house is Grade II Iisted in a conservation area. It may be interesting to see if covers us for the property being split without planning permission, not being adhered to or being incorrect by not requiring a separate water supply.

The loss adjusters arrive tomorrow, closely followed by the water board. I suspect it may be close quarter combat.

NWalton2563

Oh dear!!!!! This sounds like a can of worms from the outset. I'm not a plumber and have no idea on pipes, but could the pipes have become corroded more quickly than the 'average life' of the pipe due to it being shared and constantly in use? Someone has to be accountable for this cockup? You bought your property two years ago, but when were you aware that the supply was shared? How did you find out?

Did your solicitor give you any advice that could have contributed to a loss as it was misleading? If so, and can be proved, put a claim in from his professional indemnity insurance! Who told you RE sellers providing insurance against the council going round saying the work was illegal?? It's in a II Conservation area!!?!!!? Oh dear... I really hope this gets sorted. Sounds like someone needs suing or slapping, one or'tother!

Unless the insurer is feeling overly generous, I can't see them wanting to settle this one completely as they're certainly not at fault or in a position to accept liability when they, too, were possibly not informed? I love dragging Conmankiller into things like this.... any views CK?

Hi --- Was tempted to say something at first but to tell you the truth I cannot say with any certainty who or what is to blame, or if any blame is to be attributable for this problem ?

There are too many variables thrown into the equation..... he says / she says, then changing liabilities connected to different dates / planning / water regulations / possible neglect of duty / insurance / age of water main, life expectancy etc. to be able to help you out without speculating, which is not fair to the original poster......for that reason I am abstaining on the grounds I could easily give wrong advice...Sorry but it's way over my head. !

conmankiller:

There are too many variables thrown into the equation..... he says / she says, then changing liabilities connected to different dates / planning / water regulations / possible neglect of duty / insurance / age of water main, life expectancy etc. to be able to help you out without speculating, which is not fair to the original poster......for that reason I am abstaining on the grounds I could easily give wrong advice...Sorry but it's way over my head. !

Good call!

There are many variables here... without all the facts laid out, it is difficult to determine if anyone is to blame. Even with the facts we have, it's still difficult.

Hmm... I'd be interested to know the outcome though NWalton... Please come back and let us know !!! :)