| The Comments |
Hi, I wonder if anyone can help me. A pipe burst in our apartment and the neighbouring apart has had some water damage to the walls. A Spanish solicitor in the UK says that as it was not due to negligence, they must claim from their insurance company. They say that they have to claim from us. Does anybody please know what the correct situation is please?? Thanks, Embdengoose
0
Like
|
As far as I am aware they should claim from their insurance company who may then claim from your insurance company.
I think there is some kind of convenio/agreement between insurance companies.
I suggest you notify your insurance company and see what they say.
0
Like
|
Yes, notify your insurance company, who will be abte to determine if the origin of problems is in your own apartment´s elements or the community´s ones.
_______________________
Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA
Lawyer
Director www.costaluzlawyers.es
0
Like
|
In a similar case I was told by a friend, who works in an insurance agency, that if your insurers will not accept your claim (which they may well refer to another company) then you should ask for the complaints form
The complaints form must be available in every establishment in Spain, including the police, hospitals, town halls etc. If you ask and are told that the establishment does not have a form then call the LOCAL POLICE. They should attend, demand the form and if it is not supplied, issue an immediate fine and close the establishment.
OK If you get the form, it comprises of three pages (two are copies of the first page). It is printed in Spanish and English. Complete the form. Written down the long, left hand side, is an instruction as to which copy is for whom. One goes the establishment complained of, the other two are kept by the person complaining. If after, I believe it is two working weeks (maybe ten days) you have not received satisfaction, take the copy, so marked, to the consumers office of the town hall. They will then pursue the matter.
0
Like
|
Hi
Thank you for your help. The problem is that we do not have any insurance.
Not sure if that changes the position???
0
Like
|
Your neighbours need to claim from their Insurance company, if these wont cover the damage than they should claim from yours, as you dont have any they can claim you yourself pay for the repairs.
Make sure you take out insurance, it is not expensive and it covers you for stuff like this.
My insurance for a 2 bed apartment costs me less than €100 a year with Pelayo!
Joan
0
Like
|
EMBDENGOOSE
In that case. Pay the bill for the damages before you get lawyers charges as well.
In your case if anything in my apartment had caused damage in another, I have would immediately accepted responsibility. I am surprised you did not.
0
Like
|
Hi Embdengoose,
The absence of insurance has no bearing on the legal position.
The information you provided is not complete, but as a generalism the entity that owns/manages the building be it freeholder, long leaseholder, or residents association/group etc should insure the fabric of the building and contents of the communal areas on behalf of the individual owners. And as your solicitor seems to be saying, your neighbour should make a claim under this policy.
You mention a comment about the absence of negligence on your part, which is again correct. The situation you have outlined differs from the scenario where you might be held liable if for example you were continually allowing your bath to overflow etc. - labelled as gross negligence.
Hope this helps.
_______________________
Don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
0
Like
|
Acre, sorry to disagree with you.
If I do anything which results in loss to another, or something for which I am responsible, causes loss or damage, that I was or was not negligent does not affect that.
In my case, a leak in my (newish) apartment caused damage to the apartment below mine. There was no negligence. I was insured (not to be would be very unwise). My insurance paid for the damage my leak had caused, both to the neighbour below and for the 3,000 euros damage to my carpets etc.
Had I not been insured, I would have paid for the neighbour's damage, without any argument.
0
Like
|
Hi Johnzx,
You are welcome to doubt. But the basic principle here is negligence - unless the flatowner can prove that their neighbour was at fault their claim will fail. The TV commercials even manage to mention this in the slogan "where's there's blame - there's a claim". The important word here is "blame" - not just finger pointing, to succeed in law it means culpability.
In fact as mentioned earlier the courts have been very reluctant to favour all but those incidents which are labelled gross negligence (down right stupidity or neglect).
You say...."If I do anything which results in loss to another, or something for which I am responsible, causes loss or damage, that I was or was not negligent does not affect that". Not true - the law is not that simple. There are many defences dependant on the exact circumstances. For example if you brought a case under the tort of negligence you would need to show that the defendant owed you a duty of care, there was a breach of that duty and you suffered directly from that breach and the loss was "proximate" to the cause. Furthermore the onus would be on you to prove your case - not the other way around, a substantial difference in practical terms.
But getting back to the case in question, based on the outline provided I have not the slightest doubt that I am 100% correct about an incident of this nature occurring in the UK. The principles have been established by extensive legal precedent - the leading case law on the subject are of course easily found via Google.
However, my knowledge of Spanish law is minimal. I do know that as a generalism their legal system does not have the comparative clarity that we have in the UK, all things are relative ! However the advice from the UK based Spanish lawyer that Embdengoose quoted does seem to follow exactly what would be expected in the UK.
I don't know the full facts and cannot tell you why your personal experience with an insurer is different. But at a basic level, how do you know your insurers actually paid ? Often insurers have agreements whereby they do not contest liability between each other to save on the legal costs. They may well have told you they paid as it sounds good and justifies increasing your premium !
Or it could be that the person handling your claim simply did not know what he was doing and paid out in error. Believe me this happens very frequently - in the past few years I have assisted several people who encounter untrained insurance personnel who do the opposite - won't pay out a valid claim.
Richard
(Fully fledged barrack room lawyer)
_______________________
Don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
0
Like
|
Richard
In the case I quoted about my property and the leak. I know my insurance paid out for both my loss and the damage below.
My son has two apartments, in different buildings, here in Spain. In both we have had leaks from above. One was a shower tray leaking, another was a water supply pipe in a bathroom wall and the third was a drain pipe from a washing machine (no neglicence in any case) In the three instances the insurances for the apartments above, paid for the repairs.
In one of the apartments the people below my son had a problem with rain water , blowing onto my son's terrace, which then leaked through to the ceiling of the terrace below. After a fairly long dispute with the insurance company for the structure of the building, my sons, contents and building insurance, paid.
It is very possible that the law in UK and in Spain are different. Foreigners (Brits) frequently fall fowl of Spanish law and practices, as they assume that the laws coincide; they often do not.
0
Like
|
Hi Johnzx,
I'm sure that in Spain the insurers will have lots of fun and games with water damage claims. Many of the buildings are not designed with the thought that rain might occur every now and then and gutters and drainage systems invariably don't exist.
I imagine there must be masses of differences in laws of the two countries, but there seems to be similarities of intention also. On this issue all I was ever saying was that the advice received from Embdengoose's Spanish lawyer seemed good to me as this made sense and it would be exactly the same approach taken by UK courts.
Richard
_______________________
Don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
0
Like
|
Hi,
We have now received a letter from the other guys solicitor demanding that we pay by return or he will sue us.
About 4 years ago there was a leak from the third floor flat which damaged the flat above us, brought our sitting room ceiling down and caused thousands of euros worth of damage. Then the rats came in and caused further damage with the furniture which had to be thrown away leaving the flat nearly empty and another big bill to clear up. We were told at the time that we would have to sort it.
Has the law changed? We seem to have been liable for the considerable damage to our flat and now to the damage from a water leak to the next guys flat. Beause of the earlier damage we had to notify this when we tried to get insurance and were told that we could not get insurance because of the former damage.
Can anybody confirm the actual legal position please. We have been advised here that we are not liable because it was not negligent, ie we did not leave the bath running or something like that.
Many thanks
0
Like
|
with respect to the poster who said 'negligence' must be present.
I would take that with a pinch of salt.
It was a problem which occurred in your property and it caused loss to another. I am 99% certain you are responsible
If you want to split hairs: If the pipe was not maintained in good condition and thus it leaked, that might be said to be negligence.
Pay up before you incur more expense with solicitor's and court costs.
------------------------------------
As for the damage which was caused to your flat a couple of years ago: My advice would have been you should have pursued a claim against the flat owner where the water came from. That you did not was your choice, albeit on the advice to received.
0
Like
|
I just heard an advert on Talk Radio Europe (Liberty Insurance).
It said that in the circumstances you described, you are responsible for damage caused to the property of others.
0
Like
|
The responsible of the leak is the owner of the pipe, the owner of the pipe is who recieves or send water throught the pipe. ¿This pipe services your house? ¿Its a pipe who serves common areas? ¿Its a pipe who serves neighbour house? ¿is the pipe is in your ceiling ? ¿is in the wall? ¿are you the owner of the flat?.
_______________________
I am Spanish, sorry for my english, i try to do my best.
0
Like
|