Roof Tile Incident

[julianc]

Butter Face said:

£1200 for a bonnet?

Is it made of Unobtanium?

That seems bonkers.

That's £200 for a new bonnet and £1000 for new defeat software.

Edited by julianc on Friday 22 January 12:25

[Devil2575]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

As I said previously to Chizwind, if the tile had fallen from your roof and hit a Bugatti, and caused £30K of damage, I'm guessing your moral compass wouldn't be any more moral than mine, you'd refuse to pay as you weren't liable.

I think this is the key. It's easy to have a moral compass when you can afford too.

Also how many of us inspect the rooves of our houses on a regular basis?

I've never been up on my roof in the 3 years i've been in my house. I was never on the roof of my last house in the 12 years I lived there.

[wolves_wanderer]

superlightr said:

wolves_wanderer said:

superlightr said:

you dont pay the other sides costs in a money claim. Hence why its often worth a big company settling for whatever instead of paying a solicitor to defend and even win.

Oh, so just being a chancer. Got you.

If the OP thinks it justified that he goes to court and starts a claim, then this is one of the considerations a business will face if a money claim is made against them in defending it. time/money/effort

Welcome to real life.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 12:08

Thank you for the welcome to real life. I'm still of the opinion that doing something without legal justification in the hope that a business views it as cheaper to pay you off than defend is a bit pikey.

[superlightr]

wolves_wanderer said:

Thank you for the welcome to real life. I'm still of the opinion that doing something without legal justification in the hope that a business views it as cheaper to pay you off than defend is a bit pikey.

I do too. But I think he would have a fair chance of winning a court case. Its arguable either way. Hence why we have courts.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

As I said previously to Chizwind, if the tile had fallen from your roof and hit a Bugatti, and caused £30K of damage, I'm guessing your moral compass wouldn't be any more moral than mine, you'd refuse to pay as you weren't liable.

I think this is the key. It's easy to have a moral compass when you can afford too.

Also how many of us inspect the rooves of our houses on a regular basis?

I've never been up on my roof in the 3 years i've been in my house. I was never on the roof of my last house in the 12 years I lived there.

This isn't about holding the moral high ground; this is about responsibility. I begrudgingly agree that the OP would currently have to show negligence on the part of the building owner, which would be difficult, although not impossible. I, for one, would take it to the small claims court out of principle. Are any other tiles loose? What proof does he have of regular inspections? When was the last period of high winds? Was the roofer at fault?

A single broken tile caused by a one-off manufacturing fault years before is clearly unforeseeable. As is a night of 100mph winds. But not having your roof checked for twelve years (especially if it overlooked a shared/public area) is verging on negligence. Each roof has hundreds of tiles, each weighing 1-2lbs, and at considerable height. Each one is capable of splitting someone's skull. This is the responsibility of the building owner, and not some poor sap who happens to be stood/parked in the way.

[Devil2575]

chazwind said:

This isn't about holding the moral high ground; this is about responsibility. I begrudgingly agree that the OP would currently have to show negligence on the part of the building owner, which would be difficult, although not impossible. I, for one, would take it to the small claims court out of principle. Are any other tiles loose? What proof does he have of regular inspections? When was the last period of high winds? Was the roofer at fault?

A single broken tile caused by a one-off manufacturing fault years before is clearly unforeseeable. As is a night of 100mph winds. But not having your roof checked for twelve years (especially if it overlooked a shared/public area) is verging on negligence. Each roof has hundreds of tiles, each weighing 1-2lbs, and at considerable height. Each one is capable of splitting someone's skull. This is the responsibility of the building owner, and not some poor sap who happens to be stood/parked in the way.

Could a tile fall from your roof onto a passer by? What about the postman or a delivery driver?

How often do you get your roof physically inspected?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

chazwind said:

I begrudgingly agree that the OP would currently have to show negligence on the part of the building owner,

Is that an admission that yesterday, when you said this was absolute rubbish, you were talking...well....absolute rubbish?

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

chazwind said:

This isn't about holding the moral high ground; this is about responsibility. I begrudgingly agree that the OP would currently have to show negligence on the part of the building owner, which would be difficult, although not impossible. I, for one, would take it to the small claims court out of principle. Are any other tiles loose? What proof does he have of regular inspections? When was the last period of high winds? Was the roofer at fault?

A single broken tile caused by a one-off manufacturing fault years before is clearly unforeseeable. As is a night of 100mph winds. But not having your roof checked for twelve years (especially if it overlooked a shared/public area) is verging on negligence. Each roof has hundreds of tiles, each weighing 1-2lbs, and at considerable height. Each one is capable of splitting someone's skull. This is the responsibility of the building owner, and not some poor sap who happens to be stood/parked in the way.

Could a tile fall from your roof onto a passer by? What about the postman or a delivery driver?

How often do you get your roof physically inspected?

Yep, a tile could fall from my roof at any time and hurt someone. I'm as imperfect as the next man, and hold no moral high ground, but I do cast an eye over my roof every few weeks. Tiles generally don't 'just fall'. It's very likely that the tile in question was already dislodged and showing signs of slippage for several days/weeks/months before it fell onto OP's bonnet. Just scanning a roof from across the street can tell you a lot about its general condition.

[Devil2575]

chazwind said:

Devil2575 said:

chazwind said:

This isn't about holding the moral high ground; this is about responsibility. I begrudgingly agree that the OP would currently have to show negligence on the part of the building owner, which would be difficult, although not impossible. I, for one, would take it to the small claims court out of principle. Are any other tiles loose? What proof does he have of regular inspections? When was the last period of high winds? Was the roofer at fault?

A single broken tile caused by a one-off manufacturing fault years before is clearly unforeseeable. As is a night of 100mph winds. But not having your roof checked for twelve years (especially if it overlooked a shared/public area) is verging on negligence. Each roof has hundreds of tiles, each weighing 1-2lbs, and at considerable height. Each one is capable of splitting someone's skull. This is the responsibility of the building owner, and not some poor sap who happens to be stood/parked in the way.

Could a tile fall from your roof onto a passer by? What about the postman or a delivery driver?

How often do you get your roof physically inspected?

Yep, a tile could fall from my roof at any time and hurt someone. I'm as imperfect as the next man, and hold no moral high ground, but I do cast an eye over my roof every few weeks. Tiles generally don't 'just fall'. It's very likely that the tile in question was already dislodged and showing signs of slippage for several days/weeks/months before it fell onto OP's bonnet. Just scanning a roof from across the street can tell you a lot about its general condition.

Tiles do sometimes just fall off or work loose in high winds. There have been some strong winds recently.

[chazwind]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

chazwind said:

I begrudgingly agree that the OP would currently have to show negligence on the part of the building owner,

Is that an admission that yesterday, when you said this was absolute rubbish, you were talking...well....absolute rubbish?

What I was objecting to was the general view that OP should just suck it up, that it was an act of god, stuff happens, and just accept that it's solely his problem. I know what insurance companies are like, and the tactics that they use to avoid paying up, but their opinion is not the end of the line.

This IS the responsibility of the building owner. Whether the OP would be able to prove that is another matter altogether.

[superlightr]

Devil2575 said:

Tiles do sometimes just fall off or work loose in high winds. There have been some strong winds recently.

hence it could be argued that it would be sensible to check your roof after a storm to see if there was anything amiss and likely to fall and hit somebody or kill them or damage their car.

Exactly - Its arguable in court.

[Devil2575]

superlightr said:

Devil2575 said:

Tiles do sometimes just fall off or work loose in high winds. There have been some strong winds recently.

hence it could be argued that it would be sensible to check your roof after a storm to see if there was anything amiss and likely to fall and hit somebody or kill them or damage their car.

Exactly - Its arguable in court.

Yes but they could easily say "We did check it and it looked fine" in the same way that you may do a visual check of your house roof after a storm.

Unless you had proof that there were obviously loose tiles on the roof or the roof was generally in a poor state of repair I'm strugging to see how you can show negligence.

[superlightr]

Devil2575 said:

superlightr said:

Devil2575 said:

Tiles do sometimes just fall off or work loose in high winds. There have been some strong winds recently.

hence it could be argued that it would be sensible to check your roof after a storm to see if there was anything amiss and likely to fall and hit somebody or kill them or damage their car.

Exactly - Its arguable in court.

Yes but they could easily say "We did check it and it looked fine" in the same way that you may do a visual check of your house roof after a storm.

Unless you had proof that there were obviously loose tiles on the roof or the roof was generally in a poor state of repair I'm strugging to see how you can show negligence.

Its down to who the court would believe.

As a large company who owns the building it may be suggested that they should have records of visual and physical inspections of the roof from their maintenance department especially after storms and to show these records or give a verbal outline of their view on this and if they considered doing such checks is reasonable or not taking into account the damage that may occur if they dont.

Its arguable and with careful argument would stand a fair chance.

[Devil2575]

superlightr said:

Its down to who the court would believe.

As a large company who owns the building it may be suggested that they should have records of visual and physical inspections of the roof from their maintenance department especially after storms and to show these records or give a verbal outline of their view on this and if they considered doing such checks is reasonable or not taking into account the damage that may occur if they dont.

Its arguable and with careful argument would stand a fair chance.

How is it down to who the court believes?

What evidence does the OP have that there was any negligence?

Wanting to have someone elses insurance pay for the damage is not sufficient for anyone to claim negligence.

As for whether or not they would have records of inspections etc, do you have such records for your house?
Just because they don't have any does not make them negligent.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

chazwind said:

I know what insurance companies are like, and the tactics that they use to avoid paying up,

What, like relying on the law and their policy wording? They have a contact with the building owner and in that contract they make it clear they will only cover legal liability.

chazwind said:

This IS the responsibility of the building owner.

No it isn't. You saying it is over and over does not make it any truer.

[superlightr]

Devil2575 said:

How is it down to who the court believes?

What evidence does the OP have that there was any negligence?

Wanting to have someone elses insurance pay for the damage is not sufficient for anyone to claim negligence.

As for whether or not they would have records of inspections etc, do you have such records for your house?
Just because they don't have any does not make them negligent.

I have a residential home and yes dont check it very often. The risk of a tile falling off and damaging anyone else is low due to its location and shape of the roof/porch etc. But I would visually look after a storm.

I have a commercial property on a high street and yes after a storm we would visually check it. We also have the roof checked once every 5 years and keep records of this.

So of course its down to what a court believe is reasonable. Its certainly arguable.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

How is it down to who the court believes?

Awesome comment. Just about says it all really.

[superlightr]

Devil2575 said:

superlightr said:

Its down to who the court would believe.

As a large company who owns the building it may be suggested that they should have records of visual and physical inspections of the roof from their maintenance department especially after storms and to show these records or give a verbal outline of their view on this and if they considered doing such checks is reasonable or not taking into account the damage that may occur if they dont.

Its arguable and with careful argument would stand a fair chance.

How is it down to who the court believes?

What evidence does the OP have that there was any negligence?
.

Errr thats what Courts do? like its their whole purpose and function.

A large organisation that owns this building will have in place some form of maintenance or should do. if not why not?

Their position and experience can be argued to put them on a higher level of what is reasonable or not when making sure their building is safe in the normal course of business and or after a storm etc.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 14:10

[TwigtheWonderkid]

superlightr said:

Errr thats what Courts do? like its their whole purpose and function.

They tend to apply the law.

[chazwind]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

chazwind said:

I know what insurance companies are like, and the tactics that they use to avoid paying up,

What, like relying on the law and their policy wording? They have a contact with the building owner and in that contract they make it clear they will only cover legal liability.

chazwind said:

This IS the responsibility of the building owner.

No it isn't. You saying it is over and over does not make it any truer.

And, of course, insurance companies aren't at all interested in limiting their own liabilities to the benefit of their own shareholders (including avoiding payouts for valid claims if they can get away with it). That's never happened. At all. Ever. Honest.

And I will continue to say what I believe for as long as I feel like. You may also do the same.