Car park - liability for damage caused by poor maintennance?
Discussion
Quickish question.
My wife was visiting a supermarket car park recently, it was dark and raining. She is familair with the store in question.
When she pulled out of the parking space onto the road through the carpark, the side of her car caught on a barrier causing damage that will cost just over two thousand pounds.
On investigating the matter further it seems that a barrier (steel hoop type) at the car park was damaged and was bent out of line. Because of the damage it protruded into the carraigeway and had a reduced height rendering it invisible. I have a witness who confirmed that the barrier had been in a damaged condition for a few weeks. (she saw me taking photos and asked why)
I have contacted the supermaket in question who have denied any liability as they say they cannot control incidents like this. I am of the view that they can control it, by adequatly maintaining the car park and it's street furniture. (As it happens, the company I work for is a very large land owner and manages the estates of even larger landowners. My Estates Director is convinced that we would accept liability in a case such as this).
So, what should my next step be? As I see it I have five options:
1. Persue the small claims track in rhe County Court
2. Instruct a "have you had an accident thats not your fault?" type lawyer
3. Instruct my company's usual property litigators (sadly very expensive)
4. Instruct a smaller but well regarded laywer with a track record
5. Do nothing and shell out a couple of grand to get the car fixed?
I am interested to know peoples thoughts especially the lawyers like Breadvan as to the best way to tackle this. I am insanely busy at work and need the quickest route that will bring about a sensible solution that wont leave me massively out of pocket in cash or time terms.
Or of you think that I dont have a resoanble claim, I would be interested to hear the thought process.
If it helps or is relevant, I have already ascertained that the supermarket in question is the freehold land owner and that there is no tenant.
Since my initial letter to the store they have replaced the barrier in question.
Just thought, there is a 6th option - go through my insurance company, but TBH I don't want to claim if I can help it. Even if the store is found liable, the premium will still increase.
My wife was visiting a supermarket car park recently, it was dark and raining. She is familair with the store in question.
When she pulled out of the parking space onto the road through the carpark, the side of her car caught on a barrier causing damage that will cost just over two thousand pounds.
On investigating the matter further it seems that a barrier (steel hoop type) at the car park was damaged and was bent out of line. Because of the damage it protruded into the carraigeway and had a reduced height rendering it invisible. I have a witness who confirmed that the barrier had been in a damaged condition for a few weeks. (she saw me taking photos and asked why)
I have contacted the supermaket in question who have denied any liability as they say they cannot control incidents like this. I am of the view that they can control it, by adequatly maintaining the car park and it's street furniture. (As it happens, the company I work for is a very large land owner and manages the estates of even larger landowners. My Estates Director is convinced that we would accept liability in a case such as this).
So, what should my next step be? As I see it I have five options:
1. Persue the small claims track in rhe County Court
2. Instruct a "have you had an accident thats not your fault?" type lawyer
3. Instruct my company's usual property litigators (sadly very expensive)
4. Instruct a smaller but well regarded laywer with a track record
5. Do nothing and shell out a couple of grand to get the car fixed?
I am interested to know peoples thoughts especially the lawyers like Breadvan as to the best way to tackle this. I am insanely busy at work and need the quickest route that will bring about a sensible solution that wont leave me massively out of pocket in cash or time terms.
Or of you think that I dont have a resoanble claim, I would be interested to hear the thought process.
If it helps or is relevant, I have already ascertained that the supermarket in question is the freehold land owner and that there is no tenant.
Since my initial letter to the store they have replaced the barrier in question.
Just thought, there is a 6th option - go through my insurance company, but TBH I don't want to claim if I can help it. Even if the store is found liable, the premium will still increase.
TurboHatchback said:
blueg33 said:
Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.
If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?
You could indeed. Perhaps when driving you should be able to see that where you are driving is clear to do so? I suspect if someone hit you or your car and claimed they couldn't see because it was dark and raining you would not be especially amused.If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?
Like I said, I am not a lawyer and have no idea whether there is a legal claim but if I hit a stationary object it wouldn't even occur to me that it was someone else's fault and I should claim for it.
Its interesting to hear the views generally, I think that the owner of the property that is accessed by 3rd parties has a liability to maintain it so that it does not pose a risk. Hence, "wet floor" signs etc.
I am not going to post the photos herd for blindingly obvious reasons.
My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
The edge of the road is demarked by a white line. The barrier provides beyond that line. My wife was swinging left onto the road, the pho tugging part of the barrier was not visible from the drivers seat and was in a position such that if effectively reduced the road width got vehicles turning left. The protruding part has several colours of paint on it.
But k am not looking got judgement. No one here has seem the barrier. I am looking for strategies.
My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
The edge of the road is demarked by a white line. The barrier provides beyond that line. My wife was swinging left onto the road, the pho tugging part of the barrier was not visible from the drivers seat and was in a position such that if effectively reduced the road width got vehicles turning left. The protruding part has several colours of paint on it.
But k am not looking got judgement. No one here has seem the barrier. I am looking for strategies.
Garybee said:
What is the "blindingly obvious reason" for not posting the picture? I can't see how a picture of this dangerous street furniture being in the public domain would do you any harm.
Because it will identify the store and increases the risk of prejudicing any case that may arise. I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
pork911 said:
blueg33 said:
I am not going to post the photos herd for blindingly obvious reasons.
.......No one here has seem the barrier. I am looking for strategies.
No one at all has seen the barrier or ever could since you said in your OP that it was invisible .......No one here has seem the barrier. I am looking for strategies.
Anyhow, joking aside, strategies:-
1) wife pays and you remind her of it for eternity
or
2) contact insurer to report it (both as a potential liability for damaging the barrier and potential claim by your wife on the policy and or against the supermarket) but ask for advice on options - perhaps their assistance generally or you might have legal expenses insurance - if not, then consider paying for solicitors yourself / attempting to do it yourself
whatever you end up doing you should report it to supermarket without delay along with a request for the CCTV of incident and anyway take lots of pictures of barrier
It has been reported to the store and lots of photos taken.
Thinking overnight and besting in mind my time pressures I will probably let the insurers handle it.
allergictocheese said:
blueg33 said:
Because it will identify the store and increases the risk of prejudicing any case that may arise.
I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Hokum pokum. Posting photographs of the car park here or anywhere else will have no prejudicial effect on your dispute. I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
REALIST123 said:
You know what puzzles me? The OP describes himself as:
Property Developer and Investor (Large Scale).
He also says he works for a large landowner who also manages even larger estates.
Wouldn't such a person know the law and not need to resort to a random internet forum for advice in this situation?
Just wondering.
FWIW a colleague of mine ean into a low barrier which was bent and protruding into a car parking space in a Tesco car park. He made a direct claim which was rejected. He began action but was advised to drop it after the first official response to it was received on the grounds that he had little chance of success.
It seems these places are well versed in handling these issues. If they reject your initial approach, the odds are they know what they're doing.
To answer hour first question I do not deal directly with estates management. It's not my role. I have an overview. As I said I have spoken to my estates director. They lawyers we use at work are rather expensive. Property Developer and Investor (Large Scale).
He also says he works for a large landowner who also manages even larger estates.
Wouldn't such a person know the law and not need to resort to a random internet forum for advice in this situation?
Just wondering.
FWIW a colleague of mine ean into a low barrier which was bent and protruding into a car parking space in a Tesco car park. He made a direct claim which was rejected. He began action but was advised to drop it after the first official response to it was received on the grounds that he had little chance of success.
It seems these places are well versed in handling these issues. If they reject your initial approach, the odds are they know what they're doing.
Breadvan72 said:
allergictocheese said:
blueg33 said:
Because it will identify the store and increases the risk of prejudicing any case that may arise.
I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Hokum pokum. Posting photographs of the car park here or anywhere else will have no prejudicial effect on your dispute. I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Piglet above provides the correct "it depends on what the facts are" answer to the question of whether the shop is liable. Posting the photos could assist people here in forming a view on the facts, but it is a noble tradition in SPL to seek advice whilst being as opaque as possible about the facts that you seek advice on.
dave123456 said:
blueg33 said:
I am not going to post the photos herd for blindingly obvious reasons.
My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
given these two statements, I don't really understand where you saw this thread heading!My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
I am just going to pass it to the car insurers, I have spoken to them this morning, emailed them the pics and the obligatory bad drawing. Their gut feel, is 50/50 barrier should have been maintained, wife shouldn't have hit it. I am sending her christmas pressie back and paying her excess..........
Thanks all for your input, apologies if I came across as grouchy.
PS. Occupiers Liability Act case histories are interesting. In this type of event they seem to go either way, usually won by the claimant initially with a number being overturned at appeal
The Spruce goose said:
this dangerous obtrusion must have been a real hazard then, how many other people hit it?
How would I know? It could be lots it could be none. I dont actually live my life in supermarket carparks. There was debris around the barrier that wasnt from my wife's car. I do know that the letter we had from them on the subject was send to a completely different address, but postie recognised our namefriggs said:
Only bothered reading page 1 but OP needs shooting, wife crashed into a stationery object and wants someone else to pay, buy your wife some driving lessons and tell her to drive her dented car as punishment!
My mum once crashed into a trolley bay, forgot it was there and dented both doors and wings, the car was away with the insurance being repaired before I even found out, she sucked it up and paid her excess, didn't try to blame someone else
some people in the f
king country are stupid
My mum once crashed into a trolley bay, forgot it was there and dented both doors and wings, the car was away with the insurance being repaired before I even found out, she sucked it up and paid her excess, didn't try to blame someone else
some people in the f
king country are stupid
xxChrisxx said:
Oh dear OP, this thread hasn't really gone your way has it.
Ph threads slways go like this, so I'm not surprised, plenty of people reach to judge but not be constructive. blueg33 said:
On investigating the matter further it seems that a barrier (steel hoop type) at the car park was damaged and was bent out of line. Because of the damage it protruded into the carraigeway and had a reduced height rendering it invisible. I have a witness who confirmed that the barrier had been in a damaged condition for a few weeks. (she saw me taking photos and asked why)
Being a bit of a pedant but being 'difficult to see' is not the same as 'invisible'.blueg33 said:
My Estates Director is convinced that we would accept liability in a case such as this).
I suspect that is his position until some person crashes into a static object on the estate, then sues him for it. Then all bets are off. Edited by xxChrisxx on Monday 22 December 16:27
There are plenty of cases where people have jig objects in car parks and claimed ft UHF landowner where that land owner was negligent.
My estates director had pointed me to a case where we lost. Driver hit a bollard that had been installed at an incorrect height.
Insurers are in contact with the supermarket. Happy to let them sort it out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff