Huge bill for couple in landmark case after dodgy DIY job burns down neighbours house
A couple have been hit with a £350,000 court bill after dangerous DIY wiring to their shed freezer caused a fire that burned down their neighbour’s house.
In a decision that will send shivers down the spines of home renovators across the country, a judge ruled that Turney and Sue Logan were liable for the fire that destroyed both their home and the home of their neighbor, Christopher Stanley-Smith, in 2018; because they never asked an electrician to check out an amateur wiring job done by Ms. Logan’s former partner more than a decade ago.
Two terraced houses in Calder Vale, near Preston, Lancs, were effectively destroyed by fire; This could have been caused either by a carelessly discarded cigarette butt or an electrical fault with the wiring to a freezer in one of the sheds in the couple’s garden, researchers said.
Electrics had been installed 13 years ago by one of Ms Logan’s ex-lovers and consisted of a “domestic extension cord with four socket leads for internal use” fed into one of the couple’s two sheds through a hole drilled in the wall of the house.
Ms Logan’s former partner was described as an “office worker rather than an electrician or builder” who had “no electrical training or ability and no particular enthusiasm or skill for DIY”.
Judge Stephen Davies, of Manchester High Court, ruled that amateur wiring work was to blame for the fire and that Mr and Mrs Logan were responsible for the destruction of their neighbour’s house after failing to have it checked and rebuilt by an electrician.
The judge awarded £350,000 compensation to Mr Stanley-Smith, who sued at the behest of his home insurance company.
The court heard that a fire in Vale Terrace, Calder Vale, in May 2018 destroyed the home of both the Logans and neighbor Mr Stanley-Smith, after spreading from their cottage to the adjacent conservatory and then into the houses.
Both Mr Stanley-Smith and Ms Logan had lived in their home since 1991.
Firefighters worked throughout the night with eight engines with air support, but were unable to save property due to safety concerns caused by a full propane gas cylinder located next to the partially burned shed.
Mr Logan later told investigators the power at the couple’s home was completely cut off and he was “completely surprised” to see flames “gushing” from under the shed where the freezer was located about half an hour later.
Houses were gutted and had to be rebuilt; A later investigation determined the likely sources of the fire were a dangerous freezer cord or a cigarette butt thrown by a neighbor.
Judge Davies ruled that the wiring was faulty and that the couple should take responsibility for what happened because they never checked the extension cord.
He said Ms Logan had given him the old permit in 2005 “to electrify the back shed” but that he was “an office worker rather than an electrician or builder”.
“What he decided to do, and what he did… was to cut a hole in the back wall… to obtain a household extension cord with four socket prongs for internal use… to remove the plug from the cord, pull the cord through the hole, reconnect the plug and connect it to an existing electrical outlet located at a low level… to run the cord… so he went into the shed, where the refrigerator plug could be connected to the cord, providing a source of electricity for later use.”
“From their evidence, neither Ms Logan from the beginning nor Mr Logan when she moved in really gave any thought to the question of whether the cable posed a safety risk. Ms Logan appears to have viewed it as having never caused a problem and as something she continued to use for her freezer because it was useful and was there.”
“On cross-examination he accepted that he knew that electricity could pose a danger if installed and used incorrectly, not only because of the risk of electric shock, but also because of the risk of fire, and for this reason he always consulted an electrician to undertake any electrical work. “However, as this was a cable serving a freezer in a garden shed, it had not occurred to him that this fell within the category of electrical work.
“He did not really consider the difference between domestic quality and external quality cable; the latter was armored to protect against physical impact, including rodent damage,” the judge said.
He added that an expert who evaluated the evidence found that “the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the fire was that it was caused by an electrical fault in the extension cord” and that “taking the evidence as a whole… a defect in the electrical cord which was not of a standard suitable for the purpose for which it was installed constituted the most likely accidental cause of the fire.”
He concluded: “When one steps back and discounts the strong possibility that rodent damage is the sole cause of the cable being unsuitable for external use… On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the cause is indeed rodent damage to the cable.”
“Although I sympathize with the defendants, as I do not find for one moment that they acted recklessly or in any way grossly negligent, I find that they, like all property owners, have failed in the duty of care to which they are subject as property owners to the owners of neighboring properties.
“Ms. Logan, as the sole legal owner at the time…legally authorized the installation of the cable.
“He knew [her ex] He was not a qualified electrician and as a DIY enthusiast he had no reason to believe that he was qualified to undertake electrical work with the same competence as if he were a qualified electrician. He also took advantage of the setup later, knowing that he had been doing it for a long time.
“Ms. Logan also knew, or at least should have known, that this use of the cord was different from the way a person would occasionally run a home extension cord to a shed for use when trimming a hedge or putting lights on a pergola. [and] It was clearly intended to be a permanent arrangement.
“He should have asked himself whether he should ask for a quote from an electrician to make this a safe and permanent connection, or at least ask an electrician if it was safe to use the existing setup permanently.
“The same goes for Mr Logan when he was a co-owner of the property… he should have had the same considerations and acted on them.
“The risk was that the fire would start and spread to adjoining properties. “I appreciate that they never specifically considered this, but they should have done so if they had considered the long-term risks of using cables.
“Clearly, if they had called or sought advice from a qualified electrician on this matter they would have been warned of the safety requirements of the Building Regulations, that the cable was not suitable and that what was required was to provide a safe, permanent installation that could be approved by an electrician.
“I am also satisfied that if they had received this advice they would have acted on it and, on the balance of probabilities, the fire would not have occurred.
“In these circumstances, as I have said, the appointment of a qualified electrician to advise and/or inspect, either initially or subsequently, would, on the balance of probabilities, have discovered and resolved the problem and thus prevented the fire.
“For all the above reasons, I consider that the plaintiff has proven his case and is entitled to compensation in the agreed amount of £350,000,” the judge said.
