Roof Tile Incident
Discussion
Just to keep you all updated.... all of the evidence and images were compiled into a letter on 25.1.16 and submitted to the directors, council and insurers...
Their reply...
"I write to you in relation to your letter to ************************** dated 26 January 2016.
Please note that the owner of the building is ************************** Pension Scheme and not ************************** . Aviva are representing ************************** Pension Scheme with regards to your claim and therefore replying to the above mentioned letter.
As this is a liability claim then the onus is on you to provide evidence to prove the allegations in which you are making. Please therefore forward the evidence as to which you base the allegations on. The pictures from goggle provided with the letter do not provide evidence of negligence.
Shall your evidence be received then legal liability may be reviewed, although as it stands legal liability is denied on behalf of ************************** Pension Scheme. "
Their reply...
"I write to you in relation to your letter to ************************** dated 26 January 2016.
Please note that the owner of the building is ************************** Pension Scheme and not ************************** . Aviva are representing ************************** Pension Scheme with regards to your claim and therefore replying to the above mentioned letter.
As this is a liability claim then the onus is on you to provide evidence to prove the allegations in which you are making. Please therefore forward the evidence as to which you base the allegations on. The pictures from goggle provided with the letter do not provide evidence of negligence.
Shall your evidence be received then legal liability may be reviewed, although as it stands legal liability is denied on behalf of ************************** Pension Scheme. "
Dr Interceptor said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It would appear they have a more competent insurer than you do, as that letter is spot on. (from their point of view).
My insurer is irrelevant, as they are not involved.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not Camp Rd, Gerrards Cross, looking at those pics! 
Far from it... Camp Road is North Camps little high street. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2766217,-0.74752...
Fastpedeller said:
Or enhanced the opportunity? - They took away the offending item because of the risk and should never have dabbled in the first place!
Nope, they took away the offending item because they are conscientious and caring property owners, and the last thing they would want to do is to be negligent and leave it in place having had it cause damage to someone's property. They couldn't have foreseen the first tile falling, but now it's fallen, they can't take the risk of a second one coming down.That'll be their defence, and it's pretty water tight.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nope, they took away the offending item because they are conscientious and caring property owners, and the last thing they would want to do is to be negligent and leave it in place having had it cause damage to someone's property. They couldn't have foreseen the first tile falling, but now it's fallen, they can't take the risk of a second one coming down.
That'll be their defence, and it's pretty water tight.
Or..That'll be their defence, and it's pretty water tight.
"Device was removed as part of routine maintenance as it had reached the end of operational life"
loose cannon said:
10/10 for the effort and I hope he gets paid.On the flip side; this may have gotten a publicity-sensitive company such as Asda to pay up, but I can't see a pensions advice firm saying anything other than 'It's purely a matter for our insurer. Our hands are tied. Sorry!"
loose cannon said:
That's a pretty poor article amd paints the OP as a classic example of the entitled generation. "unable to use the car" why? Just get it repaired via your own insurance or pay for it yourself.
"On commercial insurance there's no liability unless there's negligence". Bad news OP, but that applies to every single insurance policy that's ever been written ever, the world over
"You'd think in this country, where there's such a claim culture, we would be better cared for". Irony by the bucket there.
JacquesMesrine said:
"On commercial insurance there's no liability unless there's negligence". Bad news OP, but that applies to every single insurance policy that's ever been written ever, the world over
Not just commercial insurance. There are a couple of exceptions, mainly aspects of employers liability where no negligence need apply. And keeping wild animals. If your tiger escapes and mauls someone, the owner is legally liable, even if the tiger escaped because a meteor struck the cage. Th OP mentions a sole earner possibly being killed and the family having no recourse to compensation. I would suggest that a father who was the sole breadwinner and didn't have life insurance to cover his family was negligent himself.
It is one of these cases that you file in the s
t happens drawer. I had a driver pull up next to a property of mine in his car that was on fire and get out. The fire spread to my building, damaging the roof and blowing all the render off one wall. I had to claim from my buildings insurance for exactly the same reason - there was no provable negligence from the car owner.
It is one of these cases that you file in the s
t happens drawer. I had a driver pull up next to a property of mine in his car that was on fire and get out. The fire spread to my building, damaging the roof and blowing all the render off one wall. I had to claim from my buildings insurance for exactly the same reason - there was no provable negligence from the car owner.I guess if someone had been seriously injured then the police could (would?) have ordered an immediate inspection of the roof as part of their investigations.
OP really needed to get someone up there straight away who was qualified to identify any potential negligence. Easier said than done, I know, but it seems that that's the only way of any claim being successful under similar circumstances.
OP really needed to get someone up there straight away who was qualified to identify any potential negligence. Easier said than done, I know, but it seems that that's the only way of any claim being successful under similar circumstances.
loose cannon said:
Oh dear. How embarrassing for the OP. The article makes him out as a bit of a numpty, who doesn't understand how liability and insurance works.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff