London Consumer Unit Fires.

mapj1:

The person whose insurance has the weaker legal team will pay, naturally.

This legal judgment  shows that a DNO don't even pay up when it is clearly their ancient and un-inspected cut outs that catch fire, as with enough convoluted arguing , it becomes  the householder's problem (and even after this case it still is, though the judge is clearly uneasy that the defence  (DNO ) arguments are such he cannot hold the DNO to task - as per his concluding sentence. I get the feeling that unsaid is a 'but hang on a minute, ...' )

Basically, the judge said that there was nothing which the DNOs should have done which would have prevented the fires.


(Actually he said that the DNOs' failure to do what they should have done didn't cause the fires.)


What we don't know is whether routine replacement at, say 25 years, would give rise to fewer (or more) fires; and if it did, whether the expense would be justified.

mapj1:

The person whose insurance has the weaker legal team will pay, naturally.

This legal judgment  shows that a DNO don't even pay up when it is clearly their ancient and un-inspected cut outs that catch fire, as with enough convoluted arguing , it becomes  the householder's problem (and even after this case it still is, though the judge is clearly uneasy that the defence  (DNO ) arguments are such he cannot hold the DNO to task - as per his concluding sentence. I get the feeling that unsaid is a 'but hang on a minute, ...' )

Basically, the judge said that there was nothing which the DNOs should have done which would have prevented the fires.


(Actually he said that the DNOs' failure to do what they should have done didn't cause the fires.)


What we don't know is whether routine replacement at, say 25 years, would give rise to fewer (or more) fires; and if it did, whether the expense would be justified.