Thank you. You are absolutely correct about remoteness of damage and its tied in with whether the loss was reasonably foreseeable.
For example if as a result of the flood caused by the council’s negligence (failure to repair) there was this horrible smell and someone was allergic to the smell and as a result of the allergy they were constantly sneezing and during one of the bouts of sneezing, they were driving the car, and lost control and hit a lamp post, that incident is not reasonably foreseeable and hence to remote from the flood to be actionable. I am exaggerating to prove the point.
I think this is more with regard to a duty to mitigate the loss.
For example, if the property was flooded and you simply ignored it for 12 months, the local authority would not be responsible for the ongoing damage as a result of you abandoning the property.
It is not unreasonable that it would need a deep clean after such a flood but whether the extent of that was as a result of the council’s lack of action or the tenant’s lack of action is possibly debatable.
If the property flooded and the tenant simply walked away without advising you, and the local authority will not pay for all the damage on the basis that the further damage could have been avoided, then your further claim would be against the tenant because they have been negligent by not advising you so that you could do something about it.
Can I clarify anything arising from this?
I am happy to answer specific questions arising from this?
Please rate the service positive. It’s an important part of the process by which experts get paid.
We can still exchange emails.