On Friday I had the water tank in my loft replaced. The plumber
replaced a small section of an old lead pipe coming out of the water
tank as it had 'crystallised'. On Saturday morning we found that the
lead pipe had leaked a foot or 2 down from the section that he'd
replaced. Unfortunately the leak caused damage to a door frame & a
wall.

The plumber came back on Saturday & removed another 2 feet of the pipe
& it now seems OK. He told me to claim on my buildings insurance & say
that he'd originally been called to fix a leak in the lead pipe (rather
than to fit a new tank) and that repair had caused the bigger leak. He
didn't give me a bill on Saturday but said to wait & see how I get on
with the insurance.

I'm not sure if he's just done a lousy job & is trying to get a juicy
insurance check or if it's just tough luck for me as it was a very old
pipe? Any advice as to what's normal / fair / legal would be
appreciated.

Michael

wrote in message
ups.com...

On Friday I had the water tank in my loft replaced. The plumber
replaced a small section of an old lead pipe coming out of the water
tank as it had 'crystallised'. On Saturday morning we found that
the
lead pipe had leaked a foot or 2 down from the section that he'd
replaced. Unfortunately the leak caused damage to a door frame & a
wall.

The plumber came back on Saturday & removed another 2 feet of the
pipe
& it now seems OK. He told me to claim on my buildings insurance &
say
that he'd originally been called to fix a leak in the lead pipe
(rather
than to fit a new tank) and that repair had caused the bigger leak.
He
didn't give me a bill on Saturday but said to wait & see how I get
on
with the insurance.

I'm not sure if he's just done a lousy job & is trying to get a
juicy
insurance check or if it's just tough luck for me as it was a very
old
pipe? Any advice as to what's normal / fair / legal would be
appreciated.

Michael


Lead pipe is notorious for doing just what you have experienced and
although (maybe) he should have warned you of the potential risk of
more damage it doesn't necessarily say he's bad at his job. The
crystals that form do so over a VERY long period (decades) and are
cubic which tend to form lined up with the pipe length. The only sure
way to eliminate the problem is to replace the lead. I'm guessing that
it is probably the cold feed to the tank - the slight movement caused
by the ball valve opening and closing will exacerbate the problem.

AWEM

On 18 Sep 2006 01:20:00 -0700, wrote:


On Friday I had the water tank in my loft replaced. The plumber
replaced a small section of an old lead pipe coming out of the water
tank as it had 'crystallised'. On Saturday morning we found that the
lead pipe had leaked a foot or 2 down from the section that he'd
replaced. Unfortunately the leak caused damage to a door frame & a
wall.

The plumber came back on Saturday & removed another 2 feet of the pipe
& it now seems OK. He told me to claim on my buildings insurance & say
that he'd originally been called to fix a leak in the lead pipe (rather
than to fit a new tank) and that repair had caused the bigger leak. He
didn't give me a bill on Saturday but said to wait & see how I get on
with the insurance.

I'm not sure if he's just done a lousy job & is trying to get a juicy
insurance check or if it's just tough luck for me as it was a very old
pipe? Any advice as to what's normal / fair / legal would be
appreciated.

Michael

Firstly if you follow the suggestion of your plumber you are embarking
on fraud. Simply don't do it. The plumber has or at least should
have insurance to cover problems such as you describe so claim on his
insurance.

Secondly you are in a difficult area. The plumber can be held at
fault if you can show he has done something that a professional
plumber would not have done and as a result damage to the pipe
occurred causing the leak and the consequential damage. He would then
be responsible for fixing the damage to the pipe. However, if the
pipe leaked simply because it was old and had deteriorated and moving
it to do the initial job caused it to fail then you are not likely to
have much luck claiming the plumber was at fault unless you can show
that the plumber was aware that by moving the pipe it was probable
that it would lead to subsequent failure.

Thirdly the damage resulting from the leak is consequential damage and
it is unlikely you will get the plumber to admit liability for that.
As I am sure you will appreciate there is no end to liability for
consequential damage. However it is possible your own insurance will
cover the damage caused by a leaking pipe but you must read the small
print in your policy.

I am not sure what is meant by the lead pipe having crystallized. Lead
doesn't crystallize although impurities in the water may precipitate
as crystals on the inside of the pipe but will not affect the lead.
If you have the piece of pipe that was removed i.e. second leak it may
be possible to determine whether or not the plumber caused the leak by
rough handling but I suspect the 'evidence' has been degraded when it
was removed.

I would think your best course is to get as much assistance as you can
from the plumber on a 'goodwill' basis. Suing the plumber is unlikely
to be cost effective.

Thanks for the replies. I'm haven't followed the plumber's advice - I
don't think his suggestion would have made much difference & I didn't
really want to go down that road.

I spent ages on the phone to the insurance company yesterday & of
course they're claiming it's either the plumber's poor workmanship
(which it's impossible to prove either way ) & I should claim off his
insurance (which let's face it won't happen) or that it's wear & tear &
therefore my liability.

Either way it looks like I'm going to have to foot the bill for the
plumber & do the repairs myself. Makes me wonder what the point of
insurance is for things like this.

Michael

wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I'm haven't followed the plumber's advice - I
don't think his suggestion would have made much difference & I didn't
really want to go down that road.

I spent ages on the phone to the insurance company yesterday & of
course they're claiming it's either the plumber's poor workmanship
(which it's impossible to prove either way ) & I should claim off his
insurance (which let's face it won't happen) or that it's wear & tear &
therefore my liability.

Either way it looks like I'm going to have to foot the bill for the
plumber & do the repairs myself. Makes me wonder what the point of
insurance is for things like this.

Building insurance covers you for "a particular unforeseen event". You
had a leak, you called a plumber to fix it. What's the problem?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks for the replies. I'm haven't followed the plumber's advice - I
don't think his suggestion would have made much difference & I didn't
really want to go down that road.

I spent ages on the phone to the insurance company yesterday & of
course they're claiming it's either the plumber's poor workmanship
(which it's impossible to prove either way ) & I should claim off his
insurance (which let's face it won't happen) or that it's wear & tear &
therefore my liability.

Either way it looks like I'm going to have to foot the bill for the
plumber & do the repairs myself. Makes me wonder what the point of
insurance is for things like this.
I have have seen the same issue before. Plumber fitted power shower at mates
house and 4 months later tank in loft split, whilst he was on holiday, where
plumber had connected cold feed. Luckily water was off but a whole tank
emptied out, bringing down ceilings. I supected, from looking at it that
fitting was deforming the tank and this caused the split, but plumber on
return said "no mate tanks old, thats why is split, claim on your
insurance".

Claimed on house insurance and eventually got sorted.