Roof Tile Incident
Discussion
With the absence of BV I would say .
resipsa loquitur
It is a commercial property ? Has the owner a record of maintainence/ inspections ?
Has the current owner recently purchased the property, was there a survey carried out prior to purchase that highlighted the issue ?
The slate fell off because it had been bodged on, that could of fell on a child, my child, your child, anyone's child.
The owner of that property has an obligation to keep it in a state of reasonable repair...They haven't.
Seek legal advice from a professional, not an Internet forum.
resipsa loquitur
It is a commercial property ? Has the owner a record of maintainence/ inspections ?
Has the current owner recently purchased the property, was there a survey carried out prior to purchase that highlighted the issue ?
The slate fell off because it had been bodged on, that could of fell on a child, my child, your child, anyone's child.
The owner of that property has an obligation to keep it in a state of reasonable repair...They haven't.
Seek legal advice from a professional, not an Internet forum.
Most of you will be too young to remember THE storm of 1987.
Many trees came down and fell on cars. There was no recourse on the owners of the trees. Quite simply there were not negligent so Comprehensive car owners had to claim on their own policies and accept it as a fault claim. Third Party Fire & Theft car owners were f
ked.
All policies like this reply on provable negligence be it commercial or domestic insurance.
Many trees came down and fell on cars. There was no recourse on the owners of the trees. Quite simply there were not negligent so Comprehensive car owners had to claim on their own policies and accept it as a fault claim. Third Party Fire & Theft car owners were f
ked.All policies like this reply on provable negligence be it commercial or domestic insurance.
chazwind said:
Of course, my answer would be the same as yours. And that would make any damage done to others (or their property) my responsibility.
No it wouldn't - at least not as far as the law is concerned. Provided you had taken the amount of care expected of a reasonable person (which is not massively high as far as roof maintenance goes) you would have no liability. Of course you might want to pay anyway out of a vague sense of responsibility, which is up to you. But your insurance won't pay for you in the absence of legal liability, and as Twig suggests if the damage was measured in tens of thousands rather than hundreds of pounds you might be less keen to put your hand in your own pocket.Anyway, the OP has been advised of his legal position by people in a position to know - recovering his costs from the building's owners is not necessarily impossible, but it's likely to be very difficult. If you don't like that fair enough - you don't have to agree with the law. Write to your MP, or start an online petition and campaign for to introduce strict liability for roof tile incidents. In the meantime though wishful thinking isn't going to get the OP his money back, and telling him that his chances are better than they actually are isn't helpful to him.
Aretnap said:
chazwind said:
Of course, my answer would be the same as yours. And that would make any damage done to others (or their property) my responsibility.
No it wouldn't - at least not as far as the law is concerned. Provided you had taken the amount of care expected of a reasonable person (which is not massively high as far as roof maintenance goes) you would have no liability. Of course you might want to pay anyway out of a vague sense of responsibility, which is up to you. But your insurance won't pay for you in the absence of legal liability, and as Twig suggests if the damage was measured in tens of thousands rather than hundreds of pounds you might be less keen to put your hand in your own pocket.Anyway, the OP has been advised of his legal position by people in a position to know - recovering his costs from the building's owners is not necessarily impossible, but it's likely to be very difficult. If you don't like that fair enough - you don't have to agree with the law. Write to your MP, or start an online petition and campaign for to introduce strict liability for roof tile incidents. In the meantime though wishful thinking isn't going to get the OP his money back, and telling him that his chances are better than they actually are isn't helpful to him.
roofer said:
The owner of that property has an obligation to keep it in a state of reasonable repair...They haven't.
There isn't a scrap of evidence to support that position.Is it reasonable for roof owners to check their roofs after every storm? The tile could have been dislodged after a recent storm and then finally fallen weeks later in a moderate gust of wind.
Well this has been a steep learning curve... I'll summarise as people keep suggesting things that have been gone over time and time again.
1. The owners of the building have no liability for objects falling from the building providing they have not been negligent
2. It's nigh on impossible to prove negligence of any kind, thus there is no claim from them.
3. I've accepted the quote from the local man, and I'll be paying him personally. It's simply not worth putting through my own insurance.
4. The directors who own the building are completely up their own arses, and simply don't care.
Lots of people suggesting things like small claims court - pointless. They are not legally liable, so any claim if it went to court would go against me. There is a chance they would settle prior to court, but given the belligerent attitude of their directors, I would doubt that would happen.
I honestly thought at the outset on Christmas Eve, that this would be a simple claim on their policy. As I said at the start of this post, it has been a steep learning curve.
All I can say is that if this happened outside my own commercial premises, I would be completely mortified. Even if my insurers failed to pay out, I would do everything I could to put the situation right. Shame other people in the world don't have the same moral compass.
So that's that - thanks everyone for their contributions.
1. The owners of the building have no liability for objects falling from the building providing they have not been negligent
2. It's nigh on impossible to prove negligence of any kind, thus there is no claim from them.
3. I've accepted the quote from the local man, and I'll be paying him personally. It's simply not worth putting through my own insurance.
4. The directors who own the building are completely up their own arses, and simply don't care.
Lots of people suggesting things like small claims court - pointless. They are not legally liable, so any claim if it went to court would go against me. There is a chance they would settle prior to court, but given the belligerent attitude of their directors, I would doubt that would happen.
I honestly thought at the outset on Christmas Eve, that this would be a simple claim on their policy. As I said at the start of this post, it has been a steep learning curve.
All I can say is that if this happened outside my own commercial premises, I would be completely mortified. Even if my insurers failed to pay out, I would do everything I could to put the situation right. Shame other people in the world don't have the same moral compass.
So that's that - thanks everyone for their contributions.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
roofer said:
The owner of that property has an obligation to keep it in a state of reasonable repair...They haven't.
There isn't a scrap of evidence to support that position.Is it reasonable for roof owners to check their roofs after every storm? The tile could have been dislodged after a recent storm and then finally fallen weeks later in a moderate gust of wind.
I think if you look at his username you can work out where he is coming from
Dr Interceptor said:
Well this has been a steep learning curve... I'll summarise as people keep suggesting things that have been gone over time and time again.
1. The owners of the building have no liability for objects falling from the building providing they have not been negligent
2. It's nigh on impossible to prove negligence of any kind, thus there is no claim from them.
3. I've accepted the quote from the local man, and I'll be paying him personally. It's simply not worth putting through my own insurance.
4. The directors who own the building are completely up their own arses, and simply don't care.
Lots of people suggesting things like small claims court - pointless. They are not legally liable, so any claim if it went to court would go against me. There is a chance they would settle prior to court, but given the belligerent attitude of their directors, I would doubt that would happen.
I honestly thought at the outset on Christmas Eve, that this would be a simple claim on their policy. As I said at the start of this post, it has been a steep learning curve.
All I can say is that if this happened outside my own commercial premises, I would be completely mortified. Even if my insurers failed to pay out, I would do everything I could to put the situation right. Shame other people in the world don't have the same moral compass.
So that's that - thanks everyone for their contributions.
Thanks for update. Did you get an answer from A Plan, who assured you that your policy would cover liability, regardless of negligence.1. The owners of the building have no liability for objects falling from the building providing they have not been negligent
2. It's nigh on impossible to prove negligence of any kind, thus there is no claim from them.
3. I've accepted the quote from the local man, and I'll be paying him personally. It's simply not worth putting through my own insurance.
4. The directors who own the building are completely up their own arses, and simply don't care.
Lots of people suggesting things like small claims court - pointless. They are not legally liable, so any claim if it went to court would go against me. There is a chance they would settle prior to court, but given the belligerent attitude of their directors, I would doubt that would happen.
I honestly thought at the outset on Christmas Eve, that this would be a simple claim on their policy. As I said at the start of this post, it has been a steep learning curve.
All I can say is that if this happened outside my own commercial premises, I would be completely mortified. Even if my insurers failed to pay out, I would do everything I could to put the situation right. Shame other people in the world don't have the same moral compass.
So that's that - thanks everyone for their contributions.
I think your comments re moral compass are a bit harsh. I don't think people should feel obligated to pay for things that aren't their fault, just because they are not the victims fault either.
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.
Dr Interceptor said:
Well this has been a steep learning curve... I'll summarise as people keep suggesting things that have been gone over time and time again.
1. The owners of the building have no liability for objects falling from the building providing they have not been negligent
2. It's nigh on impossible to prove negligence of any kind, thus there is no claim from them.
3. I've accepted the quote from the local man, and I'll be paying him personally. It's simply not worth putting through my own insurance.
4. The directors who own the building are completely up their own arses, and simply don't care.
Lots of people suggesting things like small claims court - pointless. They are not legally liable, so any claim if it went to court would go against me. There is a chance they would settle prior to court, but given the belligerent attitude of their directors, I would doubt that would happen.
I honestly thought at the outset on Christmas Eve, that this would be a simple claim on their policy. As I said at the start of this post, it has been a steep learning curve.
All I can say is that if this happened outside my own commercial premises, I would be completely mortified. Even if my insurers failed to pay out, I would do everything I could to put the situation right. Shame other people in the world don't have the same moral compass.
So that's that - thanks everyone for their contributions.
Grow some balls 1. The owners of the building have no liability for objects falling from the building providing they have not been negligent
2. It's nigh on impossible to prove negligence of any kind, thus there is no claim from them.
3. I've accepted the quote from the local man, and I'll be paying him personally. It's simply not worth putting through my own insurance.
4. The directors who own the building are completely up their own arses, and simply don't care.
Lots of people suggesting things like small claims court - pointless. They are not legally liable, so any claim if it went to court would go against me. There is a chance they would settle prior to court, but given the belligerent attitude of their directors, I would doubt that would happen.
I honestly thought at the outset on Christmas Eve, that this would be a simple claim on their policy. As I said at the start of this post, it has been a steep learning curve.
All I can say is that if this happened outside my own commercial premises, I would be completely mortified. Even if my insurers failed to pay out, I would do everything I could to put the situation right. Shame other people in the world don't have the same moral compass.
So that's that - thanks everyone for their contributions.
You may not lose in court. Nobody knows.
It may get settled before court after the papers have been issued.= you win,
you may get the court to agree with you and you win.
You may lose and lose what the issue fee of £35
If you dont think its worth £60 then thats upto you. I would.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 10:19
TwigtheWonderkid said:
superlightr said:
berlintaxi said:
Posting the same mantra 3 times doesn't make it any more the right course of action.
Do you know 100% if he would lose in court? come on.
Court - why do you think the def is liable
Claimant - his tile fell from his roof and damaged my car. He had not maintained his roof otherwise it would not have fallen off.
Court - Its a shame the defendant is not here to put his side - I agree that it is possible that the defendant did not maintain his roof to a suitable standard and award in favour of the claimant.
Court will look at who their believe. If the other side does not turn up then its more likely to be a win. Its an easy £60 claim and the otherside may well pay up all/part just to get rid of it anyway.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 11:00
superlightr said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
superlightr said:
berlintaxi said:
Posting the same mantra 3 times doesn't make it any more the right course of action.
Do you know 100% if he would lose in court? come on.
Court - why do you think the def is liable
Claimant - his tile fell from his roof and damaged my car. He had not maintained his roof otherwise it would not have fallen off.
Court - Its a shame the defendant is not here to put his side - I agree that it is possible that the defendant did not maintain his roof to a suitable standard and award in favour of the claimant.
Court will look at who their believe. If the other side does not turn up then its an easy win.
superlightr said:
Court - why do you think the def is liable
Claimant - his tile fell from his roof and damaged my car. He had not maintained his roof otherwise it would not have fallen off.
Court - What evidence can you provide to show that? There are loads of reasons a tile can fall without negligence.
Claimant - None.
Court - Well fk off then and stop wasting out time with stupid nonsense, you 'tard.
FTFY.Claimant - his tile fell from his roof and damaged my car. He had not maintained his roof otherwise it would not have fallen off.
Court - What evidence can you provide to show that? There are loads of reasons a tile can fall without negligence.
Claimant - None.
Court - Well f
k off then and stop wasting out time with stupid nonsense, you 'tard.Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 11:00
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FTFY.
its arguable if the op can put forward a reasonable argument that a tile should not fall off if it was maintained then he may win. If the def is not there to even give a defence or to answer when was the roof last maintained or inspected then the OP stands a chance that the court may agree with him - its not 100% either way but worth a try for £60 and the chance of early settlement.Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 11:28
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 12:06
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.Welcome to real life.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 12:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff