Roof Tile Incident

[roofer]

Devil2575 said:

CYMR0 said:

Devil2575 said:

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

The level of effort and evidence you would need to argue a negligence claim with any confidence far outweighs the value of this, but with disclosure of maintenance records and a suitable expert report, if ordered by the court, you might be able to do it. The risk is that this might be perceived as a fishing expedition.

Which it is.

At present there is no evidence that the roof was in a poor state of repair. If there was then I could understand the view of some on this thread. As it stands it seems to be largely driven by a desire for the building owner to be laible rather than any evidence that they are.

Yes, there is. In the OP's original pictures, there is a picture of a lead strap. This would have been used to hold a previously slipped slate up, more than likely a slate broken when the heat exchanger was fitted .

This, is a bodge, and not a very good one. I would suspect it won't be long before more slates part company with the battens.

[chazwind]

roofer said:

Yes, there is. In the OP's original pictures, there is a picture of a lead strap. This would have been used to hold a previously slipped slate up, more than likely a slate broken when the heat exchanger was fitted .

This, is a bodge, and not a very good one. I would suspect it won't be long before more slates part company with the battens.

I think I see what you mean; the area to the left of the exchanger? This whole area looks disturbed. Good spot. Are you a roofer, by any chance?

[Nezquick]

chazwind said:

No, I know nothing about the situation other than what the OP has told us. I haven't a clue whether the building owner was negligent or not. I have zero evidence either way. But... if I was the OP, and the information he has given is accurate, and the cost of repairs was substantial, I would pursue it an awful lot further than simply shrugging my shoulders and saying to myself 'Oh well, the building owners have told me to get lost. I suppose that's the end of it then. I'll just pay out of my pocket.".

And much of the 'advice' on this forum has been to do exactly that.

Chazwind......I can honestly say that I completely agree with you here.

[superlightr]

Devil2575 said:

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

from some pages ago...I thought I had outlined how I would go about it..... I would also add that the check should be done after storms or building works such as the one in the picture ie after the roof had been disturbed.

superlightr said:

Its down to who the court would believe.

As a large company who owns the building it may be suggested that they should have records of visual and physical inspections of the roof from their maintenance department especially after storms and to show these records or give a verbal outline of their view on this and if they considered doing such checks is reasonable or not taking into account the damage that may occur if they dont.

Its arguable and with careful argument would stand a fair chance.





A large organisation that owns this building will have in place some form of maintenance or should do. if not why not?

Their position and experience can be argued to put them on a higher level of what is reasonable or not when making sure their building is safe in the normal course of business and or after a storm etc.

Edited by superlightr on Friday 22 January 20:01

Edited by superlightr on Friday 22 January 20:02

Edited by superlightr on Friday 22 January 20:08

[superlightr]

roofer said:

Yes, there is. In the OP's original pictures, there is a picture of a lead strap. This would have been used to hold a previously slipped slate up, more than likely a slate broken when the heat exchanger was fitted .

This, is a bodge, and not a very good one. I would suspect it won't be long before more slates part company with the battens.

We now also have an "expert" view of the roof to add to the claim submission........ would not be hard to get a local roofer to actually visit and give his view...

you can see how you could make an arguable case come together. If its reported to the council they may want to investigate and give a report as well and so on. It helps the OP and may help the court to favour the OP

[chazwind]

chazwind said:

roofer said:

Yes, there is. In the OP's original pictures, there is a picture of a lead strap. This would have been used to hold a previously slipped slate up, more than likely a slate broken when the heat exchanger was fitted .

This, is a bodge, and not a very good one. I would suspect it won't be long before more slates part company with the battens.

I think I see what you mean; the area to the left of the exchanger? This whole area looks disturbed. Good spot. Are you a roofer, by any chance?

Well done to roofer for pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

Here is a thick, red, line showing the tile flight path from the roof to OP's bonnet (not taking perspective into account).



The building owner has (recently, by the look of it) decided to have a domestic heat exchanger (or recovery unit) retro-fitted onto their roof. This work was carried out poorly, with the result that several slate tiles were dislodged. Some attempt was (unsuccessfully) made at the the time to put this right. Forward to... whenever, and one of the damaged tiles falls 20 feet onto OP's bonnet.

I can see negligence in sight.

[Fastpedeller]

Is it possible to use the actions of the property owner (or insurers) AFTER THE TILE DROPPED OFF as a basis for their negligent attitude? I'm thinking if it was my roof and a tile dropped off onto the street below I'd immediately be getting the roof looked at - IF that hasn't been done since the incident that could be an indication of their approach prior as well as now? Just a thought.

[Devil2575]

roofer said:

Devil2575 said:

CYMR0 said:

Devil2575 said:

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

The level of effort and evidence you would need to argue a negligence claim with any confidence far outweighs the value of this, but with disclosure of maintenance records and a suitable expert report, if ordered by the court, you might be able to do it. The risk is that this might be perceived as a fishing expedition.

Which it is.

At present there is no evidence that the roof was in a poor state of repair. If there was then I could understand the view of some on this thread. As it stands it seems to be largely driven by a desire for the building owner to be laible rather than any evidence that they are.

Yes, there is. In the OP's original pictures, there is a picture of a lead strap. This would have been used to hold a previously slipped slate up, more than likely a slate broken when the heat exchanger was fitted .

This, is a bodge, and not a very good one. I would suspect it won't be long before more slates part company with the battens.

Well that wasn't too hard was it.

[Devil2575]

chazwind said:

Well done to roofer for pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

Here is a thick, red, line showing the tile flight path from the roof to OP's bonnet (not taking perspective into account).



The building owner has (recently, by the look of it) decided to have a domestic heat exchanger (or recovery unit) retro-fitted onto their roof. This work was carried out poorly, with the result that several slate tiles were dislodged. Some attempt was (unsuccessfully) made at the the time to put this right. Forward to... whenever, and one of the damaged tiles falls 20 feet onto OP's bonnet.

I can see negligence in sight.

You didn't spot it did you.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

You didn't spot it did you.

No, I didn't. And neither did anyone else. Which is why I said 'Well done to roofer for pointing out the bleedin' obvious.'. I meant it literally.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

I can't see where anyone has said words to that effect.

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

Asserting that you think the building owner should be liable or talking about what would happen if someone was maimed doesn't alter this fact.

Let me ask you another question. You clearly think that the building owner has been negligent, how have you come to this conclusion? Wanting this to be the case does not make it so.

Do you agree with the evidence identified by roofer? It seems pretty compelling to me...

[Collectingbrass]

chazwind said:

Devil2575 said:

I can't see where anyone has said words to that effect.

The fact remains that you need to have a basis on which to argue negligence on the part of the building owner. As yet you or any other contributor has not done this.

Asserting that you think the building owner should be liable or talking about what would happen if someone was maimed doesn't alter this fact.

Let me ask you another question. You clearly think that the building owner has been negligent, how have you come to this conclusion? Wanting this to be the case does not make it so.

Do you agree with the evidence identified by roofer? It seems pretty compelling to me...

The building owner would need to show they or their heat exchange installer had employed a specialst roofing contractor to make good around the heat exchanger. Given the level of bodge identified above this is unlikely, however if they had done, he would need to show his work was up to the standard of a reasonably skilled, competent and experienced tradesman. Whilst in theory this is a defendable claim, the odds of one of them folding over a claim value less than the cost of a serious defence in court is high enough to be worth a go.

[037]

If the OP employed a qualified proffesional roofer to nip up on that roof early one morning to get a closer look, would a detailed report ( with a few pics) from said roofer be enough evidence in court to swing it in the OPs favour?
Just a thought!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

037 said:

If the OP employed a qualified proffesional roofer to nip up on that roof early one morning to get a closer look, would a detailed report ( with a few pics) from said roofer be enough evidence in court to swing it in the OPs favour?
Just a thought!

Can't see the property owner has done anything wrong. They've employed a professional to do a job. If that job hasn't been done properly, it would be them you'd have to sue.

[Devil2575]

chazwind said:

Do you agree with the evidence identified by roofer? It seems pretty compelling to me...

I don't know. I know very little about rooves. However at least someone has come up with an argument as to why the building owner may have neen negligent.

However, you decided this was the case before you had any such information, which was my point.

[the_lone_wolf]

Have read bits of this thread, loving the sleuthy roofy side angle

One thing that might not have been mentioned is that the OP doesn't actually have to go to court and win the case, all he needs to do is convince an accountant from the liable party that it will cost them less to pay him than to go to court.

Given the cost of legal representation, unless the building had happened to be filled with a firm of solicitors, that shouldn't be too hard...

[chazwind]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

037 said:

If the OP employed a qualified proffesional roofer to nip up on that roof early one morning to get a closer look, would a detailed report ( with a few pics) from said roofer be enough evidence in court to swing it in the OPs favour?
Just a thought!

Can't see the property owner has done anything wrong. They've employed a professional to do a job. If that job hasn't been done properly, it would be them you'd have to sue.

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. The OP would claim from the building owner. If the owner wishes to involve the contractor, that's up to them.

Also, it's up to the owner to ensure that the contractor is properly qualified and adequately insured. If not, it's their problem.

[chazwind]

Devil2575 said:

chazwind said:

Do you agree with the evidence identified by roofer? It seems pretty compelling to me...

I don't know. I know very little about rooves. However at least someone has come up with an argument as to why the building owner may have neen negligent.

However, you decided this was the case before you had any such information, which was my point.

My point all along has been not to blindly accept any decision of the building owner and/or insurance company (both of whom have a vested interest in fobbing off any claim).

"Evidence doesn't just appear; you have to question, and search for it." - Columbo, 1978

[Centurion07]

Chaz, what exactly is your area of expertise as regards to this incident?

Do you work in insurance? Has this kind of thing happened to you?

[gnc]

havnt read all the posts, the same sort of thing happened to my car a few years ago. shop i rented, roof tile fell off, smashed windscreen, legal and insurance advice was i would have to prove bad maintence of roof. ( act of god ) in the end the land lord offered to pay half of the replacement costs.