Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A couple have been hit with a £350,000 court bill after faulty DIY wiring to the freezer in their shed left them in trouble. Fire which caused their burning Neighbour‘s house below.
In a decision that will send shivers down the spines of home reformers across the country, a judge Turney and Sue have ruled logan They are responsible for the fire that destroyed both their own home and the home of neighbor Christopher Stanley-Smith in 2018 because they never asked an electrician to check amateur wiring work done by Mrs Logan’s former partner a decade earlier.
A two-terraced house in Calder Vale, near Preston, Lancs, was completely destroyed by a fire that investigators said could have been caused by either a carelessly discarded cigarette end or an electrical fault related to the wiring leading to a freezer in the couple’s garden shed.
The electrics had been installed 13 years earlier by one of Mrs Logan’s exes and consisted of “a household grade extension lead for internal use with a four socket end” which was inserted through a hole drilled in the wall of the house and into one of the couple’s two sheds.
Mrs Logan’s former partner was described as an “office worker rather than an electrician or builder” who had “no electrical training or qualifications and no particular enthusiasm or skill at DIY”.
Judge Stephen Davis at the High Court in Manchester has now ruled that amateur wiring work was responsible for the fire and that Mr and Mrs Logan are responsible for the destruction of their neighbour’s house because they failed to have it checked or rewired by an electrician.
The judge awarded £350,000 in compensation to Mr Stanley-Smith, who sued on the orders of his home insurance company.
The court heard how a fire in Vale Terrace, Calder Vale, in May 2018 destroyed both Logan’s home and the home of neighbor Mr Stanley-Smith, after spreading from their shed to an adjacent conservatory and then to homes.
Mr Stanley-Smith and Mrs Logan had both lived in their homes since 1991.
Firefighters worked overnight with eight engines with air support, but were unable to save the property, partly due to safety concerns caused by a full propane gas cylinder located next to the blazing shed.
Mr Logan later told investigators that all power to the couple’s home had been shut off and about half an hour later he was “completely stunned” to see flames “shooting out” from under the freezer shed.
The houses burned down and had to be rebuilt, with subsequent investigation identifying possible sources of fire, such as a faulty freezer cable or a cigarette butt thrown by a neighbor.
Judge Davis has now ruled that there was a wiring fault and that the couple are to blame for what happened because they never checked the extension leads.
He said that in 2005 Mrs Logan had given her former partner “permission to provide an electrical supply to the rear shed” but he was “an office worker rather than an electrician or builder.”
“What he decided to do and what he did…drill a hole in the back wall…get a household grade extension lead with a four socket end for internal use…remove the plug from the cable, pull the cable through the hole, reconnect the plug and connect to the existing power socket located at low level…to run the cable…so it would enter the shed where the fridge plug could be connected to the cable So that power supply can be provided for its use.
“Based on her evidence, neither Mrs. Logan from the beginning nor Mr. Logan when he arrived raised the question of whether the cable was a safety risk. It appears that Mrs. Logan considered it to be something…that had never caused any problems and which she continued to use for her freezer because it was convenient and was there.
“She admitted in cross-examination that she knew there was a danger of electricity when installed and used incorrectly, not only because of the risk of electric shock, but also because of the risk of fire, which was why she always used an electrician to carry out any electrical work. However, because it was a cable serving a freezer in a garden shed, she did not know that it fell into the category of electrical work.
The judge said, “He took virtually no account of the difference between domestic grade and external grade cable, as the latter was armored to give protection against physical impact, including rodent damage.”
He said that an expert assessing the evidence had found that “the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the fire is that it was caused by an electrical fault on the cable of the extension lead” and “Taking the evidence as a whole … a fault on the electrical cable, not being of a standard suitable for the purpose for which it was fitted, provides the most probable accidental cause of the fire”.
He concluded: “When one stands back and considers the strength of the possibility of rodent damage being the cause, not just the unsuitability of the cable for outdoor use… I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cause was indeed rodent damage to the cable.
“While I am sympathetic to the defendants, because I do not feel for a moment that they acted negligently or in any way with gross negligence, I do think that they have not met the duty of care that they, along with all property owners, owe as property owners to their neighboring properties.
“Mrs. Logan, as the then sole legal owner… was authorized in legal terms to install the cable.
“She knew [her ex] He was not a qualified electrician and had no reason to believe that he was a person who had sufficient qualifications to perform electrical work as a DIY enthusiast with the same degree of competence as if he were a qualified electrician. Later she also used the installation, knowing that she had been doing so for a long time.
“Mrs. Logan also knew, or at least she should have known, that this use of cable was different from running a household extension lead for occasional use in the shed to cut a hedge or to install a light on a pergola. [and] Clearly a permanent arrangement was intended.
“He should have asked himself whether he should ask for a quote from an electrician to make it a safe permanent connection or, at least, ask the electrician whether it is safe to use the existing set-up on a permanent basis.
“As far as Mr Logan is concerned, the same applies to him when he became joint owner of the property…he should have taken the same views and acted on them.
“The risk was of fire starting and spreading to neighboring properties. I appreciate that they may never have thought about this specifically, but, if they had thought about the risks of using the cable over a long period of time, they should have done so.
“It is clear that if he had called or asked a qualified electrician for advice at that point he would have been alerted to the safety requirements of the Building Regulations, he would have been advised that the cable was not suitable and what was required was to provide a safe permanent installation which could be certified by an electrician.
“I am also satisfied that, had they received that advice, they would have acted on it and on the balance of probabilities the fire would not have occurred.
“In the circumstances, as I have stated, the involvement of a qualified electrician to advise and/or inspect, either initially or later, would on the balance of probabilities have detected and resolved the problem and, thus, the fire could have been avoided.
The judge concluded, “For all the above reasons I find that the Claimant has proved his case and is entitled to damages in the agreed sum of £350,000.”