Car Damaged by Falling Roof Tile
Discussion
Afternoon all,
We own a house (upper house in two storey maisonette) that we let our son and girlfriend live in and were recently contacted by them.
The person who lives in the house below (rented from another landlord) is claiming that her car was damaged by a falling tile from the roof. Not being there, we have to take it at face value that it did happen.
As the roof is a shared responsibility for any repairs, am I right in assuming that any bill for damages is split between owners of the two properties?
She is also asking for our insurance details. Is it reasonable to request two or three different quotes from body shops in order to gauge whether it would be cheaper to settle privately?
Thanks in advance.
We own a house (upper house in two storey maisonette) that we let our son and girlfriend live in and were recently contacted by them.
The person who lives in the house below (rented from another landlord) is claiming that her car was damaged by a falling tile from the roof. Not being there, we have to take it at face value that it did happen.
As the roof is a shared responsibility for any repairs, am I right in assuming that any bill for damages is split between owners of the two properties?
She is also asking for our insurance details. Is it reasonable to request two or three different quotes from body shops in order to gauge whether it would be cheaper to settle privately?
Thanks in advance.
When this happened to me (on my car) I did some research and I had to prove the neighbour was negligent in the maintenance of his roof.
Even tho he told me he hadn't had any maintenance done on it for years trying to prove that was another matter.
She will have to claim on her insurance for the damage
Even tho he told me he hadn't had any maintenance done on it for years trying to prove that was another matter.
She will have to claim on her insurance for the damage
Unless you were negligent, she has no claim against you. Had you been warned about the poor state of your roof, and ignored it? If not, then just tell her you do not accept liability and if she thinks she has a claim against you, tell her to put her claim in writing. If you get a letter, pass it to your house insurers and ask them to refute the claim due to lack of negligence. She has to prove you were negligent, you don't have to prove anything.
LargeRed said:
are you sure ?
the person owning the dwelling nearest the roof is responsible, surely.
I don't think so, my title deed says otherwise...the person owning the dwelling nearest the roof is responsible, surely.
The Disponees shall maintain the Subjects and the dwellinghouse
thereon in a good state of repair; the Disponees shall also bear an
equitable share of the cost of maintaining all roofs, common
television systems, rhones, roughcast, chimney heads, electricity
supplies, water service pipes, cold water supply tanks, central
heating top-up tanks, access footpaths, stairways, balconies,
lighting, drainage, laundrettes and all other common parts and
where applicable the cost of providing caretaking services and
communal television systems;
Martin4356111 said:
She is also asking for our insurance details. Is it reasonable to request two or three different quotes from body shops in order to gauge whether it would be cheaper to settle privately?
Assuming you were liable, she would not be under any obligation to get multiple quotes. She'd be entitled to any repair costs she'd reasonably incurred. If she went to a garage she knew and trusted, or one that had been recommended by a friend, that would likely be reasonable on her part, even if she could theoretically have had it done a bit cheaper at a different garage down the road. The days of being able to say "get three quotes and choose the cheapest" are long gone. However as above you will not be liable unless there is evidence of negligence on your part. Negligence means failing to take the level of care expected of a reasonable person. Simply not having had your roof repaired for a while is not negligence - most people don't have their roofs professionally maintained unless there's something wrong with them. If your roof was in such a poor state that an ordinary layman would have realised it was a risk, or if tiles had fallen off before and you'd done nothing about it, that *might* be negligence.
In the absence of negligence on your part then it's just one of those things - not her fault but not yours either. She would either have to claim on her own insurance, or pay for her own repairs.
There should be buildings insurance in place which they can claim on. The TP shouldnt have to claim on their own insurance.
Doesn’t need to be negligent…a tile fell off and caused the damage therefore there is a claim.
A few years ago, a drain pipe fell off a neighbouring commercial property (iirc it was windy) on to a colleagues car. The building owners tried to claim act of God but weren’t able to provide God’s insurance details. Their insurance company settled the claim.
Doesn’t need to be negligent…a tile fell off and caused the damage therefore there is a claim.
A few years ago, a drain pipe fell off a neighbouring commercial property (iirc it was windy) on to a colleagues car. The building owners tried to claim act of God but weren’t able to provide God’s insurance details. Their insurance company settled the claim.
FWIW said:
Doesn’t need to be negligent…a tile fell off and caused the damage therefore there is a claim.
It really does. If you park next to me, and my car catches fire and damages yours; you will need to show I was negligence on my part to successfully claim.
A friend was rammed off the road from behind and both cars ended up in a ditch. Ended up with a claim on the friend insurance as there was no negligence on the 3rd parties part.
LargeRed said:
Martin4356111 said:
....... As the roof is a shared responsibility for any repairs, .........
are you sure ?the person owning the dwelling nearest the roof is responsible, surely.
FWIW said:
There should be buildings insurance in place which they can claim on. The TP shouldnt have to claim on their own insurance.
Buildings insurance is there to protect the building's owner, not to protect neighbours or random people who visit the property. It will only pay for the owner/occupier's legal liabilities, ie things that they would have to pay for themselves were they not insured.FWIW said:
Doesn’t need to be negligent…a tile fell off and caused the damage therefore there is a claim.
It really does, and there isn't. This is tort law 101 level stuff.FWIW said:
A few years ago, a drain pipe fell off a neighbouring commercial property (iirc it was windy) on to a colleagues car. The building owners tried to claim act of God but weren’t able to provide God’s insurance details. Their insurance company settled the claim.
A company might well be held to a higher standard of care than a private householder with regard to things like maintaining their properties. Even so, there's still a requirement to prove negligence on their part. Of course if your colleague made enough of a nuisance of himself and the claim was a relatively small one the insurance company might well have settled his claim rather than get involved in a protracted dispute. It doesn't follow that he was in the right in a legal sense, or that another insurance company would have done the same.
Why do you take it at face value? It's nice to be kind, I understand that. But......
Has there been a tile identification parade? Are there witness statements or evidence? If not how can anybody prove who owned the tile. She should contact her insurers and let yours sort it out.
Has there been a tile identification parade? Are there witness statements or evidence? If not how can anybody prove who owned the tile. She should contact her insurers and let yours sort it out.
Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 2nd October 21:33
I'm baffled by people above saying that if a tile falls off person A's roof and damages person B's car then person B must suck it up.
I thought that's why household insurance usually contains an element of "Liability to the public" insurance. Mine is at £2M. I thought that was to cover precisely this type of eventuality.
So I am wrong? What is that "Liability to the public" there to cover if in fact anything happening to the public as they pass by my house is their own lookout?
I thought that's why household insurance usually contains an element of "Liability to the public" insurance. Mine is at £2M. I thought that was to cover precisely this type of eventuality.
So I am wrong? What is that "Liability to the public" there to cover if in fact anything happening to the public as they pass by my house is their own lookout?
MikeStroud said:
I'm baffled by people above saying that if a tile falls off person A's roof and damages person B's car then person B must suck it up.
I thought that's why household insurance usually contains an element of "Liability to the public" insurance. Mine is at £2M. I thought that was to cover precisely this type of eventuality.
So I am wrong? What is that "Liability to the public" there to cover if in fact anything happening to the public as they pass by my house is their own lookout?
You're liable where it can be shown you were negligent resulting in another's loss, you have insurance to cover this risk.I thought that's why household insurance usually contains an element of "Liability to the public" insurance. Mine is at £2M. I thought that was to cover precisely this type of eventuality.
So I am wrong? What is that "Liability to the public" there to cover if in fact anything happening to the public as they pass by my house is their own lookout?
Others need their own comprehensive cover (or not their choice) to cover their losses where you aren't negligent.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Unless you were negligent, she has no claim against you. Had you been warned about the poor state of your roof, and ignored it? If not, then just tell her you do not accept liability and if she thinks she has a claim against you, tell her to put her claim in writing. If you get a letter, pass it to your house insurers and ask them to refute the claim due to lack of negligence. She has to prove you were negligent, you don't have to prove anything.
Twig works in the insurance industry and that is the best advice on here. 
Based on my experience handling insurance claims for over 30 years!
MikeStroud said:
I'm baffled by people above saying that if a tile falls off person A's roof and damages person B's car then person B must suck it up.
I thought that's why household insurance usually contains an element of "Liability to the public" insurance. Mine is at £2M. I thought that was to cover precisely this type of eventuality.
So I am wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. Your £2m liability to the public covers your legal liability. If you weren't negligent, you aren't legally liable. I thought that's why household insurance usually contains an element of "Liability to the public" insurance. Mine is at £2M. I thought that was to cover precisely this type of eventuality.
So I am wrong?
FWIW said:
There should be buildings insurance in place which they can claim on. The TP shouldnt have to claim on their own insurance.
Doesn’t need to be negligent…a tile fell off and caused the damage therefore there is a claim.
A few years ago, a drain pipe fell off a neighbouring commercial property (iirc it was windy) on to a colleagues car. The building owners tried to claim act of God but weren’t able to provide God’s insurance details. Their insurance company settled the claim.
There's actually so much wrong information squeezed into such a short post, it's genuinely quite an impressive demonstration of total ignorance. Doesn’t need to be negligent…a tile fell off and caused the damage therefore there is a claim.
A few years ago, a drain pipe fell off a neighbouring commercial property (iirc it was windy) on to a colleagues car. The building owners tried to claim act of God but weren’t able to provide God’s insurance details. Their insurance company settled the claim.
The bit that really makes me laugh is "The building owners tried to claim act of God but weren’t able to provide God’s insurance details. Their insurance company settled the claim."
No they didn't. Well at least not on the info provided. If the insurance co paid, there's far more to the story. Like "an inspection of the remaining drainpipes showed they were all in such awful condition, that any reasonable person could tell at a glance they were a danger to the public, and the property owner was deemed to be negligent in not having replaced them."
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff