Roof Tile Incident

[chazwind]

Mandat 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.

So what would you have done?

[Mandat]

chazwind said:

Mandat 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.

So what would you have done?

About the damage or the newspaper article?

[chazwind]

Mandat said:

About the damage or the newspaper article?

The damage.

[Mandat]

chazwind said:

The damage.

I would do similar to the OP, and would try to find proof that the building owner was in some way negligent on their maintenance of the property, so that it would support a claim against them.

I would even consider going to the press, if I though it would exert some pressure on the building owner, however I wouldn't embarrass myself by giving the press the quotes that the OP had given (assuming that the OP has been quoted accurately).

[chazwind]

Mandat said:

I would do similar to the OP, and would try to find proof that the building owner was in some way negligent on their maintenance of the property, so that it would support a claim against them.

I would even consider going to the press, if I though it would exert some pressure on the building owner, however I wouldn't embarrass myself by giving the press the quotes that the OP had given (assuming that the OP has been quoted accurately).

That's fair enough. The article isn't perfect, but I think it makes OP's point. Many laymen will be surprised (as I was tbh) to learn that 'negligence' rather than 'responsibility' is the main issue.

[JacquesMesrine]

chazwind said:

That's fair enough. The article isn't perfect, but I think it makes OP's point. Many laymen will be surprised (as I was tbh) to learn that 'negligence' rather than 'responsibility' is the main issue.

Explain the difference to me as a layman and then as an expert.

[chazwind]

JacquesMesrine said:

Explain the difference to me as a layman and then as an expert.

This is treading over old ground, but...

The owner should be responsible for any damage caused by a tile falling from their roof, regardless of negligence. It's nonsensical for it to be the responsibility of the innocent vicim.

Although there is a strong possibility that the owner in this case (or contractor) was negligent when installing the heat exchanger, it is virtually impossible, in practical terms, for a third party to prove it. What was OP to do? Go to High Court that day, obtain an injunction on the owner, cordon off the area, erect scaffold, and instruct a team of forensic roofers to investigate?

The onus should be on the owner to prove that they had done everything reasonably practicable to ensure that their roof was in a good condition and safe. The rules don't require that. I disagree with them.

[Dr Interceptor]

Mandat said:

(assuming that the OP has been quoted accurately).

I haven't been... its a terrible article, but pretty much par for the course when it comes to our local paper.

[JacquesMesrine]

Dr Interceptor said:

Mandat said:

(assuming that the OP has been quoted accurately).

I haven't been... its a terrible article, but pretty much par for the course when it comes to our local paper.

It's interesting that you've not been quoted correctly, yet the parts of the article in quotation marks are very much what has been discussed on here, so one heck of a coincidence.

[JacquesMesrine]

chazwind said:

JacquesMesrine said:

Explain the difference to me as a layman and then as an expert.

This is treading over old ground, but...

The owner should be responsible for any damage caused by a tile falling from their roof, regardless of negligence. It's nonsensical for it to be the responsibility of the innocent vicim.

Although there is a strong possibility that the owner in this case (or contractor) was negligent when installing the heat exchanger, it is virtually impossible, in practical terms, for a third party to prove it. What was OP to do? Go to High Court that day, obtain an injunction on the owner, cordon off the area, erect scaffold, and instruct a team of forensic roofers to investigate?

The onus should be on the owner to prove that they had done everything reasonably practicable to ensure that their roof was in a good condition and safe. The rules don't require that. I disagree with them.

You post a lot on insurance threads, but don't seem to get the basic stuff. Are you limiting it to tiles? What if a double glazing unit fails and falls out? What if I carry out a physical inspection daily of everything that I own, but something still fails? What if I have a blow out on the way to work? What if my car flicks up a stone while I'm driving to work?

Am I responsible for all that?

[chazwind]

JacquesMesrine said:

You post a lot on insurance threads, but don't seem to get the basic stuff. Are you limiting it to tiles? What if a double glazing unit fails and falls out? What if I carry out a physical inspection daily of everything that I own, but something still fails? What if I have a blow out on the way to work? What if my car flicks up a stone while I'm driving to work?

Am I responsible for all that?

Yes. You are responsible for all that. You are responsible for everything. Ever.

[Dr Interceptor]

JacquesMesrine said:

It's interesting that you've not been quoted correctly, yet the parts of the article in quotation marks are very much what has been discussed on here, so one heck of a coincidence.

Given the chap who wrote it had a link to this thread (for photos), it isn't much of a coincidence.

[JacquesMesrine]

Dr Interceptor said:

JacquesMesrine said:

It's interesting that you've not been quoted correctly, yet the parts of the article in quotation marks are very much what has been discussed on here, so one heck of a coincidence.

Given the chap who wrote it had a link to this thread (for photos), it isn't much of a coincidence.

Why would he attribute the quotes to you though? You could probably sue them now for making you look a bit foolish. You've more chance of success

[roofer]

Dr Interceptor said:

Just been down to Camp Road (where it happened).... interesting to note in the last few days the owners have removed the offending solar panel/ heat exchanger.

Must of been the same idiots that installed it, as that is a bodge repair. I wouldn't be parking there in the near future.

[Durzel]

chazwind said:

The owner should be responsible for any damage caused by a tile falling from their roof, regardless of negligence. It's nonsensical for it to be the responsibility of the innocent vicim.

Roof tiles can fail, roof tiles and extreme weather can result in premature failure. Simply owning a roof does not automatically make someone responsible for anything that could or might happen with a roof tile.

Granted if there is a necessary maintenance interval that has not been observed, or it can be proven that the roof was constructed in a way that was more likely to fail, then there could be negligence, but the devil is in proving it conclusively. It might not even be the roof owner who is responsible, however. I know nothing about roofs, if I contract someone to provide me a roof and he/she happens to do a poor job of it, but is not immediately obvious to an untrained, unqualified eye - then how could I be necessarily negligent for a failure that I could not reasonably anticipate occuring?

I'd venture - though IANAL - that even if in the apocalyptic scenario where the sole breadwinner (& noted pillar of the community, philanthropist, a keen charity runner and prolific cat-up-a-tree rescuer) is killed, the building owners still might not be negligent, for the same reasons.