Roof Tile Incident

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Centurion07 said:

If Loon was still here this thread would've been over the day it started.

I doubt it. Even when you give people the right answers, if they don't like it, they continue to argue.

They don't want facts getting in the way of their opinions.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

Was the roof in question clearly poorly maintained?

This is central to my point. What is the basis for this asserion?

As yet the OP or you have not provided any evidence that the roof in question was poorly maintained.

What if (shock horror) you actually had to back up your assertions with evidence in order for people to take you seriously.

As for the stuff about cracked skull etc, I have no idea what the case would be if a life changing injury had resulted from a tile falling. Just because someone is injured by a falling tile doesn't make the owner of the property or the insurer liable. What if in storm a branch broke off a tree on your proprty and hit a passer by who then spent the rest of their days wheelchair bound. Would that be your fault?

Throwing in extreme hypothetical examples does not equal evidence.

You place the burden of proof on the innocent victim. I place the burden of proof on the building owner. Those opinions are diametrically opposed.

My assertion is simple: the roof failed. A tile became dislodged and damaged someone else's property (i.e. OP's bonnet). In the absence of recent 100mph winds, or a manufacturing fault in the tile, the tile had probably shown signs of slippage for some time before the incident. A commercial property should have an inspection regime in place to pre-empt this risk. The facts show that they did not. They are responsible for the damage to the OP's car. As already pointed out, the insurance industry probably has another view. That does not mean that they aren't wrong, or should not be challenged.

Extreme hypothetical questions are exactly how an argument is either proven or dis-proven. Whether the damage was to a bonnet or someone's head, the principle is exactly the same.

[chazwind]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

One man's facts are another man's minion... oops, sorry, I mean opinions.

[Centurion07]

chazwind said:

I place the burden of proof on the building owner.

Unfortunately for your argument, the law doesn't, and that's what matters.

I'm no expert but I would imagine that in the absence of some specific legislation requiring owners to inspect and maintain their roofs in the same way haulage firms are required to keep their vehicles serviced regularly, there is no negligence apparent. Which is what I believe everyone else has been saying.

[Nezquick]

chazwind said:

You place the burden of proof on the innocent victim. I place the burden of proof on the building owner. Those opinions are diametrically opposed.

My assertion is simple: the roof failed. A tile became dislodged and damaged someone else's property (i.e. OP's bonnet). In the absence of recent 100mph winds, or a manufacturing fault in the tile, the tile had probably shown signs of slippage for some time before the incident. A commercial property should have an inspection regime in place to pre-empt this risk. The facts show that they did not. They are responsible for the damage to the OP's car. As already pointed out, the insurance industry probably has another view. That does not mean that they aren't wrong, or should not be challenged.

Extreme hypothetical questions are exactly how an argument is either proven or dis-proven. Whether the damage was to a bonnet or someone's head, the principle is exactly the same.

Good grief man you're not making this easy are you.

You need to read my first post earlier on in the thread.

If the OP in this case feels the building owner is at fault then he is well within his rights to bring a claim against the building owner. He would set out that claim in a "Particulars of Claim" and allege why he thought the building owners had been negligent.

The building owner would then be able to defend the claim. To do that, they would have to show they had undertaken REASONABLE measures to ensure the tile had not fallen off the roof. It would be down to a Court to determine what is reasonable in this instance. It may be that someone having a cursory look up onto their roof from road level once a year is reasonable; or it may not. That is for the Court to decide.

It matters not whether this is a property damage claim or whether the slate has permanently maimed or even killed someone - the process is exactly the same.

[chazwind]

Centurion07 said:

chazwind said:

I place the burden of proof on the building owner.

Unfortunately for your argument, the law doesn't, and that's what matters.

I'm no expert but I would imagine that in the absence of some specific legislation requiring owners to inspect and maintain their roofs in the same way haulage firms are required to keep their vehicles serviced regularly, there is no negligence apparent. Which is what I believe everyone else has been saying.

Actually, there have been several differing views expressed in this thread.

Agreed, it's up to the OP to prove any negligence on the part of the building owner. He doesn't seem to be taking that route, which is his prerogative. I wouldn't have given up that easily. Again, what I disagree with, is the view of some people here that we should just roll over and accept whatever decision is taken on our behalf, no questions asked.

[chazwind]

Nezquick said:

chazwind said:

You place the burden of proof on the innocent victim. I place the burden of proof on the building owner. Those opinions are diametrically opposed.

My assertion is simple: the roof failed. A tile became dislodged and damaged someone else's property (i.e. OP's bonnet). In the absence of recent 100mph winds, or a manufacturing fault in the tile, the tile had probably shown signs of slippage for some time before the incident. A commercial property should have an inspection regime in place to pre-empt this risk. The facts show that they did not. They are responsible for the damage to the OP's car. As already pointed out, the insurance industry probably has another view. That does not mean that they aren't wrong, or should not be challenged.

Extreme hypothetical questions are exactly how an argument is either proven or dis-proven. Whether the damage was to a bonnet or someone's head, the principle is exactly the same.

Good grief man you're not making this easy are you.

You need to read my first post earlier on in the thread.

If the OP in this case feels the building owner is at fault then he is well within his rights to bring a claim against the building owner. He would set out that claim in a "Particulars of Claim" and allege why he thought the building owners had been negligent.

The building owner would then be able to defend the claim. To do that, they would have to show they had undertaken REASONABLE measures to ensure the tile had not fallen off the roof. It would be down to a Court to determine what is reasonable in this instance. It may be that someone having a cursory look up onto their roof from road level once a year is reasonable; or it may not. That is for the Court to decide.

It matters not whether this is a property damage claim or whether the slate has permanently maimed or even killed someone - the process is exactly the same.

Oh dear, I'm sorry. I thought this was a discussion forum. It needs to be made clearer who I can, and cannot, disagree with. It would make things so much more straightforward.

And... actually, none of my posts contradict what you've just written. So why the animosity?

[superlightr]

chazwind said:

Centurion07 said:

chazwind said:

I place the burden of proof on the building owner.

Unfortunately for your argument, the law doesn't, and that's what matters.

I'm no expert but I would imagine that in the absence of some specific legislation requiring owners to inspect and maintain their roofs in the same way haulage firms are required to keep their vehicles serviced regularly, there is no negligence apparent. Which is what I believe everyone else has been saying.

Actually, there have been several differing views expressed in this thread.

Agreed, it's up to the OP to prove any negligence on the part of the building owner. He doesn't seem to be taking that route, which is his prerogative. I wouldn't have given up that easily. Again, what I disagree with, is the view of some people here that we should just roll over and accept whatever decision is taken on our behalf, no questions asked.

Chaz - Ive given up. I agree with you.

OP grow some balls. Its arguable in court. If it happened to me I would go to court and I think I could put forward a good claim. Heck it may not even get that far if the def roll over and settle.

[CYMR0]

It is certainly arguable.

Records would be disclosable.

You may well get a county court judge who feels sympathy with the claimant; but you may not.

Arguing it, just like defending it, would be a ballache. If the OP has managed to get a SMART repairer to do the job for £250 or so then it will become a lot of ballache for very little gain.

If there were a lot of money, or a big personal injury claim, at stake I would suggest that, with an expert's report to examine the state of maintenance of the remaining tiles, disclosure of records, and a proper investigation, you could establish negligence.

However, given that it's just a bit of a dent in the bonnet of a Golf, I would be extremely reluctant to spend a court fee, spend time drafting particulars of claim, take time off work, and wait several months for a 50% chance of getting a sympathetic judge with no disclosable material revealed. Even if the hassle for the insurer is substantial, drafting and submitting a defence only needs to be done by a £10 an hour paralgegal and even if you might get a settlement after that, I wouldn't personally expect them to fold simply because a somewhat speculative claim has been issued.

I suppose that what it comes down to is your tolerance for a Pyrrhic victory. Personally I'd get my credit card out and get on with my life.

[chazwind]

superlightr said:

Chaz - Ive given up. I agree with you.

OP grow some balls. Its arguable in court. If it happened to me I would go to court and I think I could put forward a good claim. Heck it may not even get that far if the def roll over and settle.

Agreed, superlightr.

And too many posters here come across as high court judges; whatever they say goes, and if anyone disagrees, it's off to the cells with them...

[chazwind]

CYMR0 said:

It is certainly arguable.

Records would be disclosable.

You may well get a county court judge who feels sympathy with the claimant; but you may not.

Arguing it, just like defending it, would be a ballache. If the OP has managed to get a SMART repairer to do the job for £250 or so then it will become a lot of ballache for very little gain.

If there were a lot of money, or a big personal injury claim, at stake I would suggest that, with an expert's report to examine the state of maintenance of the remaining tiles, disclosure of records, and a proper investigation, you could establish negligence.

However, given that it's just a bit of a dent in the bonnet of a Golf, I would be extremely reluctant to spend a court fee, spend time drafting particulars of claim, take time off work, and wait several months for a 50% chance of getting a sympathetic judge with no disclosable material revealed. Even if the hassle for the insurer is substantial, drafting and submitting a defence only needs to be done by a £10 an hour paralgegal and even if you might get a settlement after that, I wouldn't personally expect them to fold simply because a somewhat speculative claim has been issued.

I suppose that what it comes down to is your tolerance for a Pyrrhic victory. Personally I'd get my credit card out and get on with my life.

I agree with all of that. £1200 (as originally posted)? Worth fighting. £250? Not so much.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

chazwind said:

One man's facts are another man's minion... oops, sorry, I mean opinions.

Nope. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

[Devil2575]

chazwind said:

superlightr said:

Chaz - Ive given up. I agree with you.

OP grow some balls. Its arguable in court. If it happened to me I would go to court and I think I could put forward a good claim. Heck it may not even get that far if the def roll over and settle.

Agreed, superlightr.

And too many posters here come across as high court judges; whatever they say goes, and if anyone disagrees, it's off to the cells with them...

I can't see where anyone has said words to that effect.

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

Asserting that you think the building owner should be liable or talking about what would happen if someone was maimed doesn't alter this fact.

Let me ask you another question. You clearly think that the building owner has been negligent, how have you come to this conclusion? Wanting this to be the case does not make it so.

[chazwind]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

chazwind said:

One man's facts are another man's minion... oops, sorry, I mean opinions.

Nope. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

“If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” ― Albert Einstein

Googled by chazwind.

[CYMR0]

Devil2575 said:

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

The level of effort and evidence you would need to argue a negligence claim with any confidence far outweighs the value of this, but with disclosure of maintenance records and a suitable expert report, if ordered by the court, you might be able to do it. The risk is that this might be perceived as a fishing expedition.

[Devil2575]

chazwind said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

chazwind said:

One man's facts are another man's minion... oops, sorry, I mean opinions.

Nope. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

“If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” ? Albert Einstein

Googled by chazwind.

Also Einstein has never been identified as the author of If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts, here, too, due to the inherent assertion, one cannot help having severe doubts. Therefore a quotation as inconsistent with Einstein’s real attitude as the one under discussion, should not be treated as an authentic statement

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/if-the-facts...

Googled by me.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

chazwind said:

superlightr said:

Chaz - Ive given up. I agree with you.

OP grow some balls. Its arguable in court. If it happened to me I would go to court and I think I could put forward a good claim. Heck it may not even get that far if the def roll over and settle.

Agreed, superlightr.

And too many posters here come across as high court judges; whatever they say goes, and if anyone disagrees, it's off to the cells with them...

I can't see where anyone has said words to that effect.

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

Asserting that you think the building owner should be liable or talking about what would happen if someone was maimed doesn't alter this fact.

Let me ask you another question. You clearly think that the building owner has been negligent, how have you come to this conclusion? Wanting this to be the case does not make it so.

No, I know nothing about the situation other than what the OP has told us. I haven't a clue whether the building owner was negligent or not. I have zero evidence either way. But... if I was the OP, and the information he has given is accurate, and the cost of repairs was substantial, I would pursue it an awful lot further than simply shrugging my shoulders and saying to myself 'Oh well, the building owners have told me to get lost. I suppose that's the end of it then. I'll just pay out of my pocket.".

And much of the 'advice' on this forum has been to do exactly that.

[Devil2575]

CYMR0 said:

Devil2575 said:

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

The level of effort and evidence you would need to argue a negligence claim with any confidence far outweighs the value of this, but with disclosure of maintenance records and a suitable expert report, if ordered by the court, you might be able to do it. The risk is that this might be perceived as a fishing expedition.

Which it is.

At present there is no evidence that the roof was in a poor state of repair. If there was then I could understand the view of some on this thread. As it stands it seems to be largely driven by a desire for the building owner to be laible rather than any evidence that they are.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

Also Einstein has never been identified as the author of If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts, here, too, due to the inherent assertion, one cannot help having severe doubts. Therefore a quotation as inconsistent with Einstein’s real attitude as the one under discussion, should not be treated as an authentic statement

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/if-the-facts...

Googled by me.

Haha. Touche. I just liked the quote.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

Which it is.

At present there is no evidence that the roof was in a poor state of repair. If there was then I could understand the view of some on this thread. As it stands it seems to be largely driven by a desire for the building owner to be laible rather than any evidence that they are.

To have evidence of negligence, you first need information. This forum has neither (other than what the OP has provided). We are therefore hypothesising on what we think we know, for the purposes of a (hopefully) interesting forum discussion. Asking for evidence is futile.