Contractor caused damage to neighbours sewer

[Maggie Bond]

Its a sticky subject- a real stinky

Sorry
some advice please
Our fencing contractor put a concrete fence post right through my neighbours soil pipe.
the pipe needs digging out & replacing.

The Neighbour is a Council Tenant, we are owner occupiers

Email from the Council says that we must receive the bill for making good, and we claim off the contractor

Is this correct? Why can't they go direct to the contractor who caused the damage?

Thanks very much for any advice I receive

 

[postman pat]

Hi Maggie,
The reason they want you to pay the bill is that you are the owner of the property and it was under your instructions that the fencing work was carried out,its a bit unfair but that is the way it works.Did you pay the contractor yet?
Also Im very surprised the contractor didnt realise that he damaged the pipe when he was digging the hole for the fence post,maybe contact him and see what he says.

Pat

 

[Maggie Bond]

thanks you for your prompt replies
I was asking as I couldn't understand why the Council can't approach the contractor with the bill- He has taken full responsibility & wishes to claim for the costs of making good through his insurance. So wants the bill to go direct to him.
It just seems to complicate matters when the bill comes to me for such a lot of money (don't know how much yet) and I recharge the contractor

 

[postman pat]

Maggie,
The Council"s view is why should we chase the builder when when all comes to all the householder is reponsible,also maybe get it in writing from your builder that he will reimburse you fully as he has said he would.I would just be more comfortable if I had it in writing.

Pat

 

[DirectDevil]

Generally, a principal is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.

There are some exceptions to this rule which will visit liability directly on to the principal. You might find that there are statutory or other laws which impose strict liability where damage is done to a public service such as water, or sewerage or telephone or electricity services. However, I don't see that exception applying as it seems to have been the sewer pipe of the house as distinct from a public main.

This matter should have been reported to the household insurers of the party who engaged the contractor to deal with it as a public liability claim. (BTW "deal" does not necessarily mean pay !)

I cannot see vicarious liability resting on the householder who engaged the contractor. This was the contractor's negligence and they should meet the repair costs.

The council are just taking the approach that it is not for them to elect as between the principal (householder who engaged the contractor) or the contractor as to which of them is liable and to what degree. This is the technically correct approach. Just tell the contractor to get on with it and to have his insurers settle the matter as there is no defence to this claim.