A reader seeks compensation after a neighbour's domestic oil tank leaks on to her land and contaminates the soil, plants and lawn
Heating oil leaked from a neighbour’s tank on to our land and contaminated it.
Our insurers have done some repair work but we have lost out in other ways. The insurer has tried to pursue a recovery from the owner of the property for negligence but, six months on, things seem to be getting nowhere. Can you get us the redress we deserve?
AM, Scotland
Initially, when heating oil disappeared from their above-ground storage tank, the people next door thought that the oil had been stolen. Police were called and, not finding any other explanation, reached the same conclusion. The tank was then refilled.
Soon after, however, it was noticed that the level of fuel within the tank had dropped significantly. So the supply was isolated.
A significant amount of the domestic heating fuel had escaped and much of it eventually seeped on to your land. The problem turned out to be a failed pipe. You then noticed dieback occurring. You are a very keen gardener and many precious plants were lost.
You asserted that had emergency work been undertaken sooner the migration of the oil would have been considerably less. The property owner’s insurer rejected this and vehemently repudiated legal liability.
Your own household insurance policy is underwritten by Legal & General (L&G). Its environmental specialist arranged for the removal and replacement of contaminated soil, re-turfing of the lawn area and reinstatement of the block paving. The process meant many bulbs were lost, on top of the plants that had already suffered. Your insurance does not cover replacement plants or bulbs.
You do not have legal expenses cover. You were also left with an excess to pay for the reparation work that had been done and were concerned about a premium increase as a result of having made a claim.
My involvement led to a full review. L&G have agreed to seek proper legal advice. It was eventually decided that the owners of the next-door property would be more actively pursued for recovery of the losses even though they now live abroad. The couple then agreed to make an offer.
I reminded L&G that it needed to factor in your expenses. I was assured this would be done.
You then heard from the solicitor dealing with this to say a significant proportion of all the outlays was being paid. When you asked about your excess and the costs of restocking your garden, the response was that these had not been factored in.
My efforts, it seemed, had benefited only the insurance company and not you, even though I had been assured this would not be the case.
My further representations led to L&G saying that, as a gesture of goodwill, it would pay £250 towards replacing the plants, reimburse the £150 policy excess and reinstate any no claims discount. The insurer stressed that the repairs had been carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. There had been no delays nor service issues in relation to the claim itself.
You then had to wait more than a month to receive the promised money, although L&G increased the payment for the plants to £300, paying £450 in all when the excess was added in. You have spent this mainly on plants.
No comments:
Post a Comment