Carbon monoxide poisoning claim
I previously acted on behalf of a client in Birmingham, who suffered carbon monoxide poisoning. This was caused by a defective gas fire.
At the time of her exposure my client was living in rented accommodation in Sheldon Heath Road, Birmingham.
In the living room of the property was a Valor Homeflame gas fire. The client first started using the gas fire and around mid-October. From then date onwards the gas fire remained in use throughout most of the day, until around 10 pm each evening.
After the client first started to use the gas fire, she began experiencing tiredness and headaches. These lasted all day.
After a couple of weeks her symptoms became worse. She suffered nausea and feverishness. On one occasion she vomited continuously for a 2-day period. At night the client was unable to sleep.
At the time, the client had 2 small children. She was also pregnant with her third child.
The fumes similarly affected both her children. One of the children was particularly badly affected. She was admitted to the Heartlands Hospital, where she was kept under observation for one night.
As well as suffering from her own physical symptoms, the client also suffered a great deal of distress upon seeing her two children falling ill.
Upon the advice of a friend, the client decided to have the heating system checked. She therefore telephoned the Transco emergency assistance number. This resulted in an engineer attending.
The engineer checked the gas fire. He advised that it was leaking carbon monoxide.
The client was given an inspection sheet, stating: "Valor fire releasing fumes requires full servicing".
The engineer also advised the client that the gas fire had been fitted incorrectly. So as to prevent further carbon monoxide exposure, he cut off the gas supply to the gas fire.
This left the client without any heating in her living room. Because of the cold, she and her children then had to spend 3 nights in a hotel.
Around the same time, the client discovered that she was pregnant with her third child. She became very worried that her unborn child might have been affected by my exposure to carbon monoxide.
The client reported the faulty gas fire to the managing agents. They initially rejected her complaint.
The client persisted. The managing agents then conceded that the inspection certificate for the gas fire had expired.
A further engineer then attended the premises. His inspection revealed that the gas fire had not been properly fitted.
Once the gas fire had been fixed, the client's symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning improved rapidly. Her children also made a swift recovery. She described them as "coming back to life again".
One distressing aspect of the incident was that the client's dog Bruce became very ill from his exposure. He suffered sickness and diarrhoea.
The client took Bruce to the vet. Tests were carried out and Bruce was kept in overnight on two occasions. At this stage the cause of his symptoms was unknown. Sadly, Bruce did not recover and eventually he had to be put down.
I sent a letter before action to the managing agents. The basis of the claim was that they provided a defective gas fire. Secondly we alleged that they had failed to install the gas fire correctly. Finally we said they failed to inspect the gas fire following installation, or to undertake periodic checks.
The managing agents ignored the letter of claim. Accordingly we issued an application to obtain a court order for pre-action disclosure, in Birmingham County Court.
Faced with an imminent court hearing date, the managing agents then responded. They confessed however that their insurers had refused to underwrite the carbon monoxide poisoning claim. This was because they had failed to notify their insurers promptly.
After that, the managing agents were forced to appoint solicitors on a private basis. The solicitors then wrote to say that they would "deal with" the claim.
We then wrote and requested confirmation that they would pay the client's legal costs. This letter was ignored. Further chasing letters were sent and also ignored. Finally after about 6 months, the opponents finally confirmed that the legal costs would be paid.
We then obtained a supporting medical report from a chest physician.
In the meanwhile it was dicovered that the managing agents had dissolved their firm.
It was also revealed that following the incident, one of the erstwhile partners had subsequently started up a new property firm in Birmingham. As part of this, he had retained control of the property letting side of the previous business.
Accordingly I wrote to his solicitors, requesting confirmation that their client intended to honour the previous admission of liability. No response was received.
Subsequently the opposing solicitors sent a fax, implying that liability was denied. They suggested that the claim should be redirected to the landlords.
In light of this, attempts were made to locate the whereabouts of the landlords. This involved engaging the services of a firm of enquiry agents. Correspondence then took place with their solicitors, based in Bristol.
By this stage, it was clear that no progress would be made unless county court proceedings were issued. For this reason a further letter was sent to the solicitors acting for the opponent, advising that proceedings would be issued against both defendants. If subsequently the claim against the landlords was discontinued, then he would be liable for the costs of the discontinuance.
At this point the opponent's solicitors promptly confirmed that the earlier admission of liability was maintained.
After that settlement negotiations took place. The outcome was a suitable compensation figure being agreed. The settlement was perfected by way of a consent order.
We then waited for a cheque to arrive. After 21 days we were still waiting, and so a chasing letter was sent. This was ignored.
Eventually we wrote to advise that an application would be issued to amend the consent order to include a provision for Penal Notice if the compensation was not received within 7 days.
Faced with this ultimatum, the opponent finally parted with a cheque and the client received her compensation.
To my mind, it is disappointing to say the least, that the managing agents failed to ensure that the gas fire was safe. This led to my client and her two young children both suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning.
We had a hard fight to obtain compensation in this case. It is disturbing to realise that having caused injuries to an innocent mother and her children, the managing agents preferred to make crude attempts to evade responsibility.
Thank you for visiting.